Letter: Woodward jury

Valerie Hewitt,Martin Hewitt
Tuesday 11 November 1997 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: We believe that many of the criticisms levelled at the American Woodward jury apply equally in Britain. Two years ago we put our faith in the "12 good men and true", opting for a Crown Court trial for our son. We witnessed how a jury, despite medical and character evidence, can reach bizarre decisions. Prior to this experience, we had inherent faith in the system; indeed we had never had cause to question it. Our first rumblings of disquiet came when, during the case, a barrister stated to us that "we all know prisons are full of innocent people".

The jury must be one of the final institutions where there is no quality assurance, no way of ensuring standards, no means of evaluation and from whose decisions there are few means of redress. Members are not only unaccountable, but also likely to be unrepresentative, and the dynamics of decision-making are likely to be uninformed and questionable.

In the light of the Woodward case, and of the crisis of confidence in the British justice system caused by recent high-profile miscarriages of justice, isn't it about time that the Government included this issue on its agenda, and gave consideration to ways in which jury decision-making processes can be monitored and evaluated. In the long term replacing juries with a bench of nine lay magistrates, who are at least familiar with the requirements of the court, might be a better option.

VALERIE HEWITT

MARTIN HEWITT

Bursledon, Hampshire

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in