He wrote: "I strongly believe that it would be a serious injustice to the legal system to select me for jury service. I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people and couldn't possibly be impartial if either appeared in court. Therefore it would not be in the court's interest to have me a juror." He admitted that in his eagerness to bring any case to a swift conclusion, he would simply vote with the majority and not give his true opinion.
He added: "I would be more than happy to speak to a judge regarding my personal views on the legal system, which I do not hold in high regard." Prosecuting and defence barristers Rebecca Austin and Robert Bryan lodged a challenge to him as a juror. When questioned by Judge Burrell about whether these were his true beliefs he confirmed they were. He also added that he didn't think he had the right to 'judge anyone'. Judge Burrell concluded it was difficult to know for sure whether those were the man's beliefs or if he was simply trying to manipulate the system.
Either way, he said the opinions were not those held by the vast majority of the population and dismissed him from both the jury and the court building. Judge Burrell said: "If you do genuinely hold these views then you are someone who should not be on the jury. I also question whether you should be doing anything responsible in society at all." The man, who was escorted from the court, was warned he now faced prosecution under the Contempt of Court act for failing to serve on a jury.
2 comments:
So the admitted homophobe and a racist wouldn't have been prosecuted for serving on a jury? Not sure the validity of his story, but it seems to me that the justice system would be much better served if they had an impartial jury. So he did the right thing by admitting to his failings.
I sincerely doubt that he was doing anything other than trying to get out of jury duty.
Post a Comment