Justice within the jury system

**In recent weeks, two court cases, one at home and one abroad, have dominated the news agenda. In Britain, R. v. Huhne and Pryce, better known as the case against former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne and his ex-wife Vicky Pryce. The latter is accused of taking speeding points for Huhne in 2003. This has led to a fascinating by-election in Huhne’s old seat of Eastleigh. Meanwhile, the world was shocked by The State v. Pistorius, as South Africa’s premier athlete Oscar Pistorius appeared in court charged with the murder of his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp.**

Both of these cases have been the centre of much media attention and public speculation. But one key difference has affected the nature of these cases. In Britain, Huhne and Pryce have been tried in front of a jury of 12 citizens. In South Africa, one judge sits before Pistorius.

In Britain there are strict rules for what the press can and cannot report when a case is sub judice (before the courts). Newspapers can be fined for being in contempt of court, the best example of this being when both the Sun and the Mirror were fined for falsely suggesting that the architect Joanna Yates was murdered by her landlord Chris Jefferies. The main purpose of this law is to prevent juries being influenced by the press.

In South Africa, however, there is no jury and hence no contempt laws. This has led to a veritable media circus surrounding the Pistorius case, with close relatives and friends cross-examined by the press, not the solicitors.

Extraordinarily, the British case against Pryce (Huhne pleaded guilty) collapsed because the jurors were unable to fulfil their duties and were discharged. The Daily Mail was quick to pounce on this unusual occurrence, pointing out that 10 of the 12 jurors were of non-white descent (and some, horror of horrors, had ‘religious observances’!).

A crude court-style illustration was the centrepiece of a double-page spread that decried both the multicultural jury and the society they represented in general, implying that their ethnicities were key to the case’s failure. The classic sign that the Mail had gone too far was evident, as BNP leader Nick Griffin tweeted his support.

So what do the Huhne and Pistorius cases tell us about justice and the jury system? First, it is clear that trial by jury is preferable whenever possible. A group of people asked to weigh up the actions of the defendants based upon their own experience is clearly preferable to one man or woman sitting in judgement. Given the jury system’s long record of success, and given the alternative, we should be thankful for our legal system and be willing to overlook the occasional problem.