Merseyrail Martin Zee case - Not Guilty verdict reached

[CarlSilva]

I cant' comment on this case because I know nothiong about it. But it's interesting what a few of youve said about getting in trouble for speculating online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25210867

Anyone commenting about a case or defendant in a way that could prejudice a trial could be prosecuted for contempt and imprisoned.
That is why the attorney general is going to start publishing advice - that previously only went to the media - to the public via his website and Twitter feed.
It is designed to help inform people about the legal pitfalls of commenting in a way that could be seen as prejudicial to a court case or those involved.
Guidelines currently issued to the media about high-profile cases could be published online and through Twitter to prevent legal risks and the collapse of trials, he said.

How do you prejudice a trial ? I suppose if a member of a the jury read any speculation on the internet and it influenced their decision, it could be a problem. ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

How do you prejudice a trial ?

There are many ways in which you can prejudice a trial to the extent that it collapses. You could disclose a defendant's previous criminal history, you could disclose a witness' previous criminal history, you could falsely claim to have professional knowledge or insight that you don't have.

My view is that nothing on this thread poses a real legal problem because nobody is professing to have expert opinion or insight into the specific situation and nor are they attacking the witnesses in the case. But you do have to be careful: "Mabel definitely did it, I've never liked her, she was horrid to me at school" really would be prejudicial to a trial, even if you're not really professing any insider knowledge.

And even if a jury shouldn't be reading it, if you disclose things that the jury shouldn't know (such as previous criminal offences) then you're in big bother.

 

[AlterEgo]

From Echo:

The evidence for the case has now concluded.

Judge Amil Murray is now explaining the next steps to the jury.

He explains how the judge will explain the law, before both the prosecution and the defence give a speech to the jury.

He has now released the jury for the day.

Tomorrow we are expecting to hear closing statements from both prosecution and defence before the jury will be sent out.

 

[lejog]

I cant' comment on this case because I know nothiong about it. But it's interesting what a few of youve said about getting in trouble for speculating online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25210867

How do you prejudice a trial ? I suppose if a member of a the jury read any speculation on the internet and it influenced their decision, it could be a problem. ?

Yes precisely, if say the trial collapsed as a result of jurors reading the commentary made in posts on this thread, or other threads on this forum, or indeed if they were reposted on more widely read internet media, it is possible that the posters and/or the forum owners could face action. The risks are extremely small, but the potential consequences large.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is a goldmine for lawyers having differing legal opinions, but the BBC correspondent is correct in saying:

The rise of social media has meant that conversations about criminal cases, once had down the pub or over the garden fence, are now instantly published online - and can be shared with thousands, BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman says. But Facebook and Twitter are publications subject to the same laws that in practice used to apply only to the mainstream media.

which is why I suggested only making factual posts of the type seen in the printed media until a verdict is reached. I see from the article you link to that the Attorney General went further than this:

He said the "simplest rule" people should follow is not to comment on live trials online.

 

[infobleep]

I refer you to my earlier post, Moonshot. As I made it clear - as a journalist of 29 years' local and regional newspaper experience - there most definitely ARE laws against much of the speculation, insinuation and accusation which has been thrown around during this thread's life. A newspaper or other publication including this website only has defence for a fair, accurate and contemperaneous report of proceedings and nothing else - not speculation, rumour, gossip or opinion.

Genuine question, if a newspaper accidentally calls a prosecution lawyer a defence lawyer or visa versa, would that be contempt of court, as its not an accurate description of what is going on or are such errors considered reasonable and allowed?

 

[infobleep]

Out of interest, if someone was discussing an on going trail down the pub and a member of the jury accidentally overhard, would that be enough for a trial to collapse?

 

[TEW]

Out of interest, if someone was discussing an on going trail down the pub and a member of the jury accidentally overhard, would that be enough for a trial to collapse?

Potentially. Especially if the people discussing the case were involved in some way. A juror has to reach their verdict based solely on evidence presented in court and nothing else.

 

[daikilo]

For me, it is clear that the judicial process needs to take into account current means of communication. In addition, I am challenged to imagine how a juror can state that he or she has not been aware of public comment in say the preceding year.

My personal opinipon is that the current juror process must evolve to take into account current communication channels and introduce means to allow jurors to ask for clarification on "information" provided via them.

 

[HH]

I don't know about the rest of you, but from the court transcript I'm not even sure what the facts are. I wish the jury good luck in reaching a decision.

 

[daikilo]

Out of interest, if someone was discussing an on going trail down the pub and a member of the jury accidentally overhard, would that be enough for a trial to collapse?

As I understand, if the discussion included information not provided to the court such as X was not where s/he claimed then it could lead to the person hearing it having concerns. These concerns could be transmittted to other jurors who would then have to decide of their own accord.

Personally, I think "down the pub" is the least concern, "on the internet" is much wider and more difficult to control even if written.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

For me, it is clear that the judicial process needs to take into account current means of communication.

Why on earth should this be seen to be a positive scenario? The law as it stands remains the status quo.

 

[Llanigraham]

For me, it is clear that the judicial process needs to take into account current means of communication. In addition, I am challenged to imagine how a juror can state that hehe has not been aware of public comment in say the preceding year.

My personal opinipon is that the current juror process must evolve to take into account current communication channels and introduce means to allow jurors to ask for clarification on "information" provided via them.

Once the Jury has "retired" they can ask fr clarification of anything they have heard in Court.

 

[swj99]

Out of interest, if someone was discussing an on going trail down the pub and a member of the jury accidentally overhard, would that be enough for a trial to collapse?

Who can say ? Maybe it would depend on whether the judge found out about it.
Another possibility is that if a defendant was convicted and his or her lawyers found out about it later, they could appeal the conviction and claim that it was unsafe.

Levi Bellfield, who was convicted of murdering Milly Dowler, was being tried for the attempted kidnapping of another girl, but the trial 'collapsed'.

Levi Bellfield trial: Rachel Cowles angry over trial collapse after 'media coverage'
.........But tabloid newspapers and television news programmes subsequently published “hugely prejudicial” material about the “predatory and violent" convicted murderer, which the jury had not been made aware of.

The “avalanche” of adverse publicity included interviews with former partners, airing police interviews, linking him to other high-profile murders and publishing comments about defence tactics.

On Friday Mr Justice Wilkie admitted he had been forced into the "deplorable" position of discharging jurors before they returned verdict in the case. The charges will now “lie on the file”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...over-trial-collapse-after-media-coverage.html

Two newspapers were subsequently found guilty of contempt of court.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Another possibility is that if a defendant was convicted and his or her lawyers found out about it later, they could appeal the conviction and claim that it was unsafe.

Levi Bellfield, who was convicted of murdering Milly Dowler, was being tried for the attempted kidnapping of another girl, but the trial 'collapsed'.

The media coverage around Levi Bellfield was particularly unfortunate for all concerned, and not just because the trial collapsed. The impact on some of the witnesses was enormous.

The Attorney General's advice not to comment at all is generally sound, because it is the only certain way of not being in Contempt. But in reality I don't think much on here would be seen as contemptuous: nobody is claiming insider knowledge, nobody is attacking the credibility of a witness, nobody is disclosing something that isn't public knowledge.

For me, it is clear that the judicial process needs to take into account current means of communication. In addition, I am challenged to imagine how a juror can state that he/she has not been aware of public comment in say the preceding year.

My personal opinipon is that the current juror process must evolve to take into account current communication channels and introduce means to allow jurors to ask for clarification on "information" provided via them.

Jurors can ask for clarification on anything they don't understand at any time by sending a message to the judge.

In most cases, a juror won't be aware of any public comment, because there won't have been any. Even with Crown Court trials, most cases are relatively mundane and won't have had any media coverage whatsoever. If a juror has a specific interest in the railways and had been reading coverage of this case then they should have declared it; most people, even in Liverpool, won't have even noticed that this incident happened.

 

[HH]

Today's link to the Echo live reporting: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-sixth-day-trial-12743739

Here's what the judge said:

Judge Amil Murray is now laying out how the jury must reach their decision. There is a series of questions.

He explains:

Are you sure the safety of Mrs Edna Atherton was endangered?

Are you sure that the defendant failed to make proper checks that all passengers were on board before closing the doors? If no, not guilty. If Yes, go to the next question.

If you thought the defendant’s failure to see Mrs Atherton was, or might have been due to the system put in place by Merseyrail. If so, then not guilty. If not, go to the next question.

Are you sure when the defendant failed to make proper checks, that he realised that by acting in that way there was a risk to the safety of a passenger? No - not guilty. Yes - go to the next question.

Are you sure that knowing there was such a risk it was unreasonable for him to take it? If no, then not guilty. If yes, guilty.

That's quite a set of hurdles to clear.

 

[AlterEgo]

Today's link to the Echo live reporting: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyrail-guard-sixth-day-trial-12743739

Here's what the judge said:


That's quite a set of hurdles to clear.

Indeed, quite a set of hurdles.

And it's good to see the law explained so succinctly and clearly. I know this happens at the end of every case, but the public are often denied the luxury of seeing this plain English explanation in after-the-fact reporting.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, but obviously still has to go through the process. Its now up to the jury to decide however.

The jury has returned and Judge Amil Murray is going to sum up the case to them.

He says the incident has been replayed in “painstaking” detail, but that the defendant only had a few seconds to make his decisions.

He says the defence have made their case - and it was that the mistake did not cause the accident and that the accident would have happened anyway due to Mr Zee’s employers not ensuring there was proper visibility for guards at the station, because the defendant had to turn his back to the views of the platform to close the doors, and because Mrs Atherton was boarding the train when the alarms were sounding and it was not safe to do so.

Think a lot of people across the industry following this case agree that this has been a waste of time and money

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, but obviously still has to go through the process.

I hope not: that would be enough for a mistrial...

 

[AlterEgo]

Sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, but obviously still has to go through the process. Its now up to the jury to decide however.

The judge doesn't decide guilt and cannot misdirect the jury.

He is simply summing up the prosecuting and defending arguments.

 

[Bromley boy]

Sounds like the judge has already made up his mind, but obviously still has to go through the process. Its now up to the jury to decide however.



Think a lot of people across the industry following this case agree that this has been a waste of time and money

From what I've read of it, the arguments of the prosecution seem tenuous in the extreme. I honestly can't see much of a public interest in prosecuting this case. All it's achieving is wasting money and needlessly dragging someone over the coals.

It seems a strange charging decision by the CPS, but that's by no means uncommon.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

I hope not: that would be enough for a mistrial...

The judge doesn't decide guilt and cannot misdirect the jury.

He is simply summing up the prosecuting and defending arguments.

As I said, its up to the jury to decide.

 

[MichaelAMW]

From what I've read of it, the arguments of the prosecution seem tenuous in the extreme. I honestly can't see much of a public interest in prosecuting this case. All it's achieving is wasting money and needlessly dragging someone over the coals.

It seems a strange charging decision by the CPS, but that's by no means uncommon.

Given that the CPS is supposed to act in the public interest, does anyone know if they are required to defend their decision to prosecute, or not to do so, if there is significant public concern raised once the trial has ended?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One thing that is very interesting is the way the judge essentially said that if he followed procedure he is by definition not guilty. Does this set precedent?

 

[MichaelAMW]

One thing that is very interesting is the way the judge essentially said that if he followed procedure he is by definition not guilty. Does this set precedent?

And, it seems to me, by including that he has also in effect put the TOC on trial as well.

 

[talltim]

Yep, you did in post #4, agreeing with the commentary made in post#3. Commentary and speculation have been continuous ever since in this thread and previous threads.

Newspapers wouldn't publish reports of court hearings containing the kind of commentary in #3. Publishing on the internet is covered by exactly the same laws.

Of course, the risk of being found in contempt is low and the main risk is borne by the forum publishers, not the poster. On a forum I moderate we are under strict instructions from the forum owner to delete such posts immediately, as he doesn't fancy even a small risk of paying say a £10k fine, just so people can indulge in such speculation concerning ongoing court cases. Moderators here are free to take whatever view they wish and rely on whatever rules they want to rely on.

Surely if saying the the prosecution case was weak was in contempt of court, every defence team ever would be in contempt of court?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely if saying the the prosecution case was weak was in contempt of court, every defence team ever would be in contempt of court?

You can say what you like *in* Court if you are doing so in your appropriate time to speak (and it's not profane or a lie etc). The issue is discussion outside Court.

 

[talltim]

You can say what you like *in* Court if you are doing so in your appropriate time to speak (and it's not profane or a lie etc). The issue is discussion outside Court.

And I'm sure its been said by defence teams many a time before the case too. Outside of court. And often it will be true. After all if all prosecution cases were watertight there would be no 'not guilty's*

*yes, I know, there are other reasons for 'not guilty'

 

[AlterEgo]

The jury has been sent out. From the Echo:

Judge Amil Murray is now sending the jury out to make their deliberations.

He explains how they can see the CCTV footage again if they need to.

He says the evidence is now closed and there cannot be any more evidence.

He tells them they need to appoint a foreperson to return the verdict and to chair the discussions.

He says they need a unanimous verdict, but if there is a stage where they can accept a majority verdict he will let them know.

He tells them they can take as much or as little time as they like.


The jury are now sent out. We will bring updates to the blog as soon as they return their verdict - or whether the verdict is not expected to come today.

(my emphasis)

 

[gimmea50anyday]

So now we wait....



If found guilty this could set a very dangerous presedent, and i think every single member of train crew who deal with despatch should all down tools until the position is made very clear on the safe despatching of a train

 

[daikilo]

Jury sent home, will reconvene 16/3 a.m.

Note that the Liverpool Echo has a new article and link which I guess will change again when the court reconvenes.