exiges Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Mods move at will http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076997/Juror-Matthew-Banks-jailed-Christmas-phoning-sick-halting-trial.html A juror who claimed he was ill during a court case so he could go watch a West End musical with his mother will spend Christmas behind bars. Matthew Banks, 19, went to see a production of Chicago in London when he should have been in a Manchester court for the fifth day of a trial. But before the curtain went up on the show, court officials discovered his deception and sent police looking for him. The Manchester University language student has now been sent to Forest Bank Young Offenders' Institution for 14 days after admitting contempt of court. Banks looked stunned as he was led away to start his sentence. Judge Martin Rudland said Banks' offence was too serious for a suspended jail term because of the frivolous reason for his absence and the lies he told to try and manipulate Manchester Crown Court. Banks spent last week sitting in the case of a thug who ran over his girlfriend with a car. He did not tell the court he had pre-booked tickets for a show at the outset of the trial. The case had reached its summing up stage - where the judge reviews the evidence for the jury - when the teenager rang court saying he had been throwing up all night. His absence meant the other eleven jurors had to go home. His deception was discovered when Judge Rudland asked court officials to contact Banks to see if he would be fit for court after the weekend. When the official rang Banks' home, his boyfriend said he was not there because he had 'gone to London to see a show'. After police went to interview the boyfriend, Banks rang the court again claiming that he was recovering at his mother's home in Staffordshire. In reality, he was heading for a 5pm performance of Chicago at London's Garrick Theatre. Banks was ordered to attend court on Monday and admitted what he had done. Judge Rudland told him: 'It’s a huge sadness and disappointment for me to see you sitting in the dock when for the last week I have seen you sitting in the jury box. Banks' mother has vowed to do everything she can to get her son freed for Christmas. Debbie Ennis fears he will have to serve the full 14-day sentence and has vowed to take his case to the highest court in the land. She said: 'It’s ludicrous. I do not understand what the judge was trying to achieve by putting him behind bars.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomandlu Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Juries, like democracies, are terrible - they're just better than the alternatives. Not that the courts are much better on the professional side. I've only done jury duty once. The guy was probably guilty, but neither the prosecution or defence seemed to give a damn about presenting a clear case for their arguments and just seemed happy for the jury to toss a coin - result was that we were unable to reach a decision... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I don't know, does this sentence seem harsh to anyone? Jurors pulling a sick day has to be discouraged, but a young offenders institution?? I can imagine the treatment this kid will get in there. It seems hugely wasteful of prison space, and money. Juror Matthew Banks, 19, jailed for seeing West End showA juror who pretended he was sick so he could go to a West End musical, has been jailed for two weeks. Matthew Banks, 19, told officials at Manchester Crown Court he was ill, but he had actually gone to London. The trial Banks - who saw Chicago - was a juror for was halted for a day with the judge sending the jury home. Judge Martin Rudland labelled the student "frivolous" and ordered he serve a 14-day sentence at a Young Offenders' Institution. Judge Rudland said he was jailing Banks, who could spend Christmas in prison, for contempt of court "with a heavy heart" but that lying to court officials for such a frivolous reason was a serious offence. The week-long trial later continued in Banks' absence with the remaining 11 jurors reaching a verdict, Judicial Communications Office officials said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-16288257 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 oh I see this topic is on the main forum too already. I must have missed the housing angle on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 There's already a thread for this but I'd add that I would take 14 days in custody instead of watching Chicago in the west end, any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Personally I think the term is too short! The boy (and despite being 19, and hence legally an adult, deserves to be called as such), or more pertinently the mother for her totally outrageous reaction, is yet another symbolic representation of the anti-social dysfunctional nature of the country. A little humble pie from her, acknowledging her sons error, and plead for forgiveneness on his part would be more appropriate. But when do you see parents apologise for the their offsprings anti-social behaviour? "Yes I know he burnt down the building with all the people in it..... but its so outrageous he has to go to prison....." yada yada yada. Jury duty is always inconvenient and most would rather be elsewhere doing whatever they had already personally planned on doing. Yet it is such a socially important task that people should regard it as just that - a duty. The alternative to judgment by your peers is vastly less desirable. If people were taught at school world and UK history a little better they would have a better appreciation of why people are called to do jury service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Bart' Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 When the official rang Banks' home, his boyfriend said he was not there He's a 'fan of musical theatre'. He should have used that as his defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Personally I think the term is too short! The boy (and despite being 19, and hence legally an adult, deserves to be called as such), or more pertinently the mother for her totally outrageous reaction, is yet another symbolic representation of the anti-social dysfunctional nature of the country. A little humble pie from her, acknowledging her sons error, and plead for forgiveneness on his part would be more appropriate. But when do you see parents apologise for the their offsprings anti-social behaviour? "Yes I know he burnt down the building with all the people in it..... but its so outrageous he has to go to prison....." yada yada yada. She should have been sent down too for aiding and abetting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 She said: 'It’s ludicrous. I do not understand what the judge was trying to achieve by putting him behind bars.' Probably trying to do something she never did - 'discipline' him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I don't know, does this sentence seem harsh to anyone? No. How much did it cost to rerun the trial? It's always explained how serious Jury duty should be taken, and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 No. How much did it cost to rerun the trial? It's always explained how serious Jury duty should be taken, and rightly so. The trial wasn't rerun. It ran with the remaining 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PricedOutNative Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I wonder how many judges have pulled a ‘sickie’, if they are representative of government servants it will be quite a lot…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Jury duty is always inconvenient and most would rather be elsewhere doing whatever they had already personally planned on doing. Yet it is such a socially important task that people should regard it as just that - a duty. The alternative to judgment by your peers is vastly less desirable. If people were taught at school world and UK history a little better they would have a better appreciation of why people are called to do jury service. Nonsense. Jury duty is a completely and utterly reprehensible idea. The concept of the state being able to order you to do something with your time is dreadful. No-one has a duty to do anything that they don't voluntarily agree to. It's the utmost arrogance imaginable for one group of people to start ordering others around and fundamentally no different from me ordering you to go and mow my lawn, at a time determined by me. The ends might still justify the means but please don't start throwing words around like "duty". It's an appalling, revolting idea that's just not quite as bad as any alternative that anyone's thought of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Nonsense. Jury duty is a completely and utterly reprehensible idea. The concept of the state being able to order you to do something with your time is dreadful. No-one has a duty to do anything that they don't voluntarily agree to. It's the utmost arrogance imaginable for one group of people to start ordering others around and fundamentally no different from me ordering you to go and mow my lawn, at a time determined by me. The ends might still justify the means but please don't start throwing words around like "duty". It's an appalling, revolting idea that's just not quite as bad as any alternative that anyone's thought of. Its not a duty you are performing for the state - you are performing it, ultimately, for yourself! To ensure, overall, that when you may at some time have to answer for your own actions that you are judged by your peers who, on balance and by virtue of larger numbers than a single judge, will judge you more fairly and reasonably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efdemin Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 I wonder how many judges have pulled a ‘sickie’, if they are representative of government servants it will be quite a lot…. I don't know tbh. I may have heard about a county court trial that was delayed by a day because the chief police officer had missed their flight back from holiday, alledgedly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Its not a duty you are performing for the state - you are performing it, ultimately, for yourself! To ensure, overall, that when you may at some time have to answer for your own actions that you are judged by your peers who, on balance and by virtue of larger numbers than a single judge, will judge you more fairly and reasonably. A naive view IMO. And I certainly wouldn't call a random bunch of people my peers. A random bunch of people with no evidence that they are capable of rationally and impartially assessing evidence and making an intelligent judged opinion on it. As I said, it's only barely tolerable because no-one's thought of something better (any attempt at assessing qualification for the role, beyond the very obvious, is too open to corruption). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Jury service is to be avoided at all costs. I don't think the right to vote is anything worth bothering about either. Happy to stay off the electoral roll - and with that goes the risk of being called to jury service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 A Crime against Humanity Jury service, like tax, is the state taking from its citizens without the option. Unlike taxes, it doesn’t pay for anything productive: rather you’re being coopted to listen to grossly overpaid actors (aka barristers) performing, without the benefit of a show you would want to see. OK, which barrister convinced you? That’ll be the one working for the biggest crook, who knows how to Play the System. If you ever believed The Liar, you’re likely to be convinced by the biggest liar in court, too. And you’re deprived of your liberty and normal life for an indefinite period: unlike convicted criminals, jurors don’t get time off for good behaviour. Self-employed, or a crucial person in a small business? Tough – just go under, as you cannot service your contracts, and if you’re lucky you can start again before you lose your house at least. A teacher? That’s 30 kids with their education disrupted, unless the school happens to have quite a lot of slack. This whole jury system is a crime against humanity. So what can one do about it? If you Play the Game and pronounce a verdict based on the show you’ve just seen, you’re letting yourself become complicit in that crime. If you refuse to go when summoned, you commit a criminal offence (though the penalties for it might be less trouble than the service itself). There’s no satisfactory solution. To cap it all, if you get a real gangster, you and your loved ones might be at significant personal risk if you find against them. And of course they’ll then get any adverse verdict overturned by a higher court without the encumbrance of a jury, on the time-honoured principle of innocent until proven broke. [edit - that got cut off too early] It seems to me that, so long as the loss of time is bearable, the least bad outcomeis non-cooperation within the law. That means going through the motions, but discounting everything presented to you by those overpaid spin-doctors in court. You have (by law) to give a verdict, and there’s only one verdict in a criminal case: * If the accused didn’t do it, they are Not Guilty. * If the accused did do it, they are still Not Guilty. That’s the lesser of two evils: it’s an injustice, but one that has to be set against complicity in the far bigger crime of the jury system. Any exceptions to that? Certainly not when trying a private individual: not even someone like Ian Huntley or Fred and Rosemary West. For a public figure whose crimes are on a global scale? Well, if I were on the jury for The Liar himself, it would be a tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butthead Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 So because jury service is a bit of an inconvenience anyone called should let anyone get away with their crimes? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on HPC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappycocco Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Finally one of the banks is doing some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Hmm, don't really agree with all of that. Letting a crook off just because you've been unjustly forced into jury service is adding to the list of injustices. Two wrongs don't make a right. I would still try to do my best if I was bullied into it (nearly was, but got a phone call a couple of weeks before saying that they didn't need me after all). It's like conscription. Utterly against it, but if I was forced into it and stuck into a position where I was having to defend someone innocent I'd still do that rather than let them be killed. Also, it's not a direct comparison to (most) taxes because if you somehow managed to live in complete self-sufficient isolation (most) taxes would be irrelevent *and wouldn't apply to you, but jury duty is something a bunch of people have decided they can order you to do simply for existing (don't say leave the country as if the ability to flee injustice means that it isn't an injustice). * an academic position only because to all practical intents and purposes it's impossible to do that and impossible to avoid being the beneficiary of a few things paid for by tax - perhaps not ideal, but a practical compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Allegro Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 No. How much did it cost to rerun the trial? It's always explained how serious Jury duty should be taken, and rightly so. Agreed. The sentence is not harsh; it only appears so because so many more serious offenders seem to get off scot-free. If you look at those Police-Camera-Chav type programmes, there have been loads of cases where people assault police officers but get let off without even a caution the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
righttoleech Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 but how much is his mum's house worth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 More evidence that the state still has loads of money to waste. Has the £3.50 water bottle guy been released yet? Which rapists/thugs/crooks were allowed out early to make room for the facebook thought crimers?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.