The Thoughts of Chancellor Charlie

Dear Diary,

A new terror is to be added to life if Lord Falconer gets his way. It is proposed that previous reports of the facts of cases currently being tried should be removed from the internet for the duration. Not to do would be a contempt.

The fear is that jurors go searching for material which they then utilise despite their oath not to do so. It seems that Lord Falstaff takes the view that this is ok and that the focus ought to be prevention rather than responsibility. As Karl Marx said, controlling the means of production is the important thing.

Dear diary: my own view is that, rather than attempting to redraft the Contempt of Court Act, Bunter LJ could try and redraft the directions to the jury in order to emphasise the need to try a case on the evidence presented in Court. No one is more dedicated to the jury system than I, but if people cannot keep a promise, they are unlikely to judge a case properly. In fact, I suspect that most jurors simply do not have it stressed to them enough that the evidence upon which they are to decide the case is that presented in Court. What is required, in appropriate cases, is what is known in the trade as a John Deed direction. I offer a draft for the attention of His Lordship below.

“Members of the jury: it is not impossible that you will have watched television programmes in which Judges sit on juries and inevitably spot the obvious injustice to which the actual Judge in the case, and all counsel, have been blind. Without informing anyone, those Judges have gone away and solved the crime on their own, entirely unaided by the Police, the forensic science service, or anyone on the witness list for the trial. In order to do so these Judges have utilised the internet, especially such reliable sites as Wikipedia.

Please do not be misled by such fictions. As this case has progressed it may, I know not, have become obvious to you that, whilst such television programmes portray counsel with a degree of accuracy which you may find impressive, such a comment cannot be made about a real life Judge. Consequently, when I sum the case up to you and suggest that the Defendant is guilty, you may rely on that suggestion although you are, of course, at liberty to disregard my comments if you feel self-confident enough to substitute your own amateurish thoughts for my well-honed professional view.

The evidence is that presented to you by Mr Getthebastardatallcosts for the Prosecution, whose abilities, you may feel - although it is entirely a matter for you - do slightly exceed those of Ms Maiden. I suppose that in fairness I ought to say that Ms Maiden has less to work with, her client being so dishonest as to fail to reliably give his own name. Anyway, there is absolutely no need to trawl the internet for further evidence of guilt. Or innocence, not that there would be any of that.

Well, there it is. We can sit here all day, or you can be sensible and we can all be home by teatime. Except the Defendant obviously. It is entirely a matter for you.”