The highest* criminal court in England & Wales, the Court of Appeal, has come up with a judgment holding that what is called ‘jury nullification’ isn’t permitted, it’s called ‘jury equity’ by some here. The duty of the jury is to return a verdict on the evidence, jurors (who are compelled to serve and take an oath to deliver a true verdict according to the evidence) must follow the law and the judge’s directions. The proceedings arose from some environmental criminals who vandalised a bank and sought to defend their actions on the basis of something like that the bank’s shareholders would have consented to the damage if they’d known it would protect the environment. This is technically a defence in English law, but on the facts, none of the accused mentioned this in interview, all raised it in court and it may well have been found to have been a contrived defence, we don’t know why, because juries do not give reasons or discuss the case afterwards.
The case considered the landmark decision of Bushell’s Case from 1670, the juror who refused to convict Quakers William Penn and William Mead and his writ of habeas corpus was granted, after the trial judge fined and imprisoned him for not returning a guilty verdict.
Since Mr Bushell wrongly did porridge for saving Quakers, the law has moved on and in England, it is forbidden to mention jury nullification in court.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment held that whilst jurors have to give verdicts according to the law and the evidence, there is no mechanism to punish them if they do not do so (provided they actually follow the rules and are either split with no verdict, or acquit). The Court said this:
Bushell’s Case may be best understood as recognising an immunity from punishment in respect of their decision as to what verdict to return, rather than a right to return verdicts in defiance of the evidence.
A distinction that might be lost on some, but it means that the concept of nullification cannot be raised in court as part of a defence.
And would it be wrong to think that in the States, ‘jury nullification’ is seen as a pro-liberty stance as a check on an overly powerful State, whereas ‘jury equity’ in the UK is seen as a way to undermine property rights and allow socialist violence to go unchecked?
* The Supreme Court is based in England, but it sits as a ‘UK’ court. It could yet hear an appeal from this case if an appeal were brought.
Mention jury nullification to a jury in the States, and you can go to jail, depending on the judge.
But it remains a huge problem in, say, the Washington D.C. area, where attempts to prosecute progressives run into jurors who vote by tribe rather than evidence. Hard for a Republican DOJ to get convictions there, and so much government (and thus gov corruption) is based there that the DOJ looks hard for any jurisdictional hook to get cases transferred out, or initiated elsewhere.
Sort of jury nullification nullification.
@bobby b
so much government (and thus gov corruption)
Of course a solution to this is to move large swaths of government out of DC to the states, another thing Trump has promised but never really delivered on. The argument “government officials need to be near each other for meetings” seems to forget the existence of Zoom.
Were we to do that, move a few agencies to Nebraska or South Carolina, there might actually end up being one or two Republicans working for the federal government.
Sort of jury nullification nullification.
Does that mean a challenge to a jurisdictional transfer by the defendant is a jury nullification nullification nullification? And if such a decision is overturned on appeal it is a jury nullification nullification nullification nullification?