Contrary to some observers’ fears, juries can deal with complex fraud trials, argues Ian Francis
The universal application of the jury is again under attack, and this time it’s serious. I have followed this campaign for some years now. So when I read Lady Elizabeth Butler-Sloss’ judgment setting out why she did not intend to call a jury in the Princess of Wales inquest, I sat up and took notice. On a further reading I realised that I had given undue weight to the most alarming phrases.
Here is a redacted version of the paragraph which will give you an idea of my first impressions:
“I see the advantages of calling a jury of ordinary citizens to make an impartial decision…[but]…the disadvantage of a jury is the need…to have a careful and fully reasoned decision reviewing all the relevant evidence and providing a clear conclusion [and]…[s]uch a reasoned decision…cannot be given by a jury.”
Mohamed al Fayed instructed Michael Mansfield QC at the preliminary hearing to argue for the appointment of a jury in the inquest into the deaths of his son Dodi al
