UK Law Articles
These articles are reproduced from old newspapers. Whether you are looking for old articles about the Lord Chancellor's Department, or trying to find stories on solicitors, judges or courts, the law teacher article database is here to help you. You will find these articles useful for writing your law essays, law dissertations and law coursework.
The Times
September 25 2000
Jack Straw wants to curb the rights to a jury trial. But, says Frances Gibb, this could result in rough justice for thousands
Still wanted: 12 good men and true
Virgil Blennerhassett is a respectable family man who holds down a well-paid job in an accident-repairs company in Luton. Returning home from a social occasion one night with his wife and children, he became embroiled in a row with neighbours and ended up being arrested and charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He opted for trial by jury and was acquitted.
But under government plans to curb the right to elect for jury trial, he would not have had that right. Indeed, the outcome of Virgil's trial might have been very different.
It was a Saturday in May last year. Blennerhassett remembers the date, May 22, well. For one thing it was the Cup Final. But he and his wife Julie had their own reason to celebrate. They had been out enjoying themselves at a friend's wedding reception, not far from where they live in Luton, and were returning home. What had been a pleasant evening was to turn into a nightmare, which could have lost Blennerhasset his job, cost him his home and put him in prison.
It was about 11pm and Blennerhassett, 33, admits he'd had a few bottles of lager, so his wife drove home. But he was not drunk. "As we approached our house our neighbour was trying to get his Renault 19 into a gap in front of his house and his wife and another neighbour were standing on the verge trying to direct him. He's the sort of person who wants to park exactly outside his house and he was having some difficulty getting into the space. It was quite a comical scene."
What happened next, according to Blennerhassett's version of events, is that the neighours challenged him and his wife over why they were laughing.
"We said: 'At you lot!' And there was a fair bit of abuse. And then the neighbour said something like . . . 'why don't you just take your muppet kids into your house', along with a few swear words. I still found it quite funny. But when they mentioned my children, that got me and I told them to shut up."
He and the neighbour - he admits they've never got on - ended up on the ground. "Then just as I was getting up, his wife punched my wife in the face and gave her a big shiner. The children were screaming by this time . . . so we got inside, our main priority was to calm them down and get them to bed."
A short while later there was a ring on the front door. It was the police. They told Blennerhassett that the man next door had a suspected broken ankle and that they were arresting him on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm.
"I found myself handcuffed in my own front room and taken off to the police station where I was kept right through Sunday until Monday morning. I was completely bewildered by the whole thing. I couldn't believe it. Monday morning came and the duty solicitor got me bail. He couldn't believe I had waited so long."
Then began a wait of some eight months before Blennerhassett's case came to trial. From the start he wanted trial by jury. With his alleged offence, he could have been tried either by magistrates or by a judge and jury in the Crown Court. But he never hesitated in opting for trial by his peers, despite the greater length of time it would take and the risk of a much heavier penalty if found guilty. In his case, too, there was another big disincentive: the cost.
Because he was in a well-paid job, Blennerhassett did not qualify for legal aid. "So I had to think about the extra cost. In the end it came to about £5,000 (costs he can recover). But it was well worth it."
Alan Jones, his solicitor, says: "This was a typical case of the kind which shows how important it can be for a person to be able to choose trial by jury. Here is a case of huge importance to the client, a successful person in a good job where the outcome mattered hugely to him and to his family. If found guilty, he was liable to a heavier sentence than the JPs could impose, so there was already a risk in opting for jury trial. Then there were the greater legal costs, as well as the ordeal of waiting."
In the end the magistrates referred the case to the Crown Court anyway on the grounds that a likely penalty was outside their powers. But had they not done so, Blennerhassett would have insisted. "I felt that if I had a jury you'd get people with children, the same age as myself, and that people could see for themselves how I would have reacted. I also felt I had a good case and that it would all be gone into much more thoroughly in the Crown Court. The magistrates did not look at all the evidence. There was a neighbour from over the road who offered to be a witness because she had seen the whole thing. But they did not really go into what she said. And the barrister in the Crown Court did an excellent job of showing all the inconsistencies in the evidence against me."
Mr Jones says: "In my 20 years as a criminal lawyer I have advised many such defendants to choose a Crown Court trial. Only a very small minority have pleaded guilty. The vast majority of such defendants have also been acquitted. A small number change their pleas to guilty, usually because the prosecution reduces the charges at trial."
As they waited for the trial, which took place this February, Blennerhassett and his wife had to make contingency plans. "We had to think about what to do if I ended up in prison. I had to think of the people who might be left behind, especially as I was supporting them. My wife would have to live with her mother and we'd have to let the house out."
His wife says the whole episode imposed a huge strain. "The worst moment was when he was arrested and we were not being informed of what was happening. I had to keep telling the children that Daddy was helping the police and that everything would be all right."
But it was not until the Crown Court jury had retired that she suddenly realised her husband might be about to go to jail. "When they said, if he was found guilty, did he want to be sentenced immediately . . . and said that he might go to prison, that's when it really hit me."
Meanwhile, the wife of the man next door was also prosecuted over the same incident. She was charged with common assault for punching Julie Blennerhassett in the face. The offence of common assault can be tried only by magistrates. She was found guilty and fined.
