Following the UK Privy Council’s decision, there has been public scrutiny over proposed amendments to the jury act and allegations regarding Juror X’s activities.
Read the release:
Tuesday, March 18, 2023 — We have noted the public reports and comments after the United Kingdom Privy Council’s decision on this matter.
We note the very public attempts to ‘amend’ the jury act to affect the rights of accused persons to a jury trial. We remind the public that the UKPC noted in [35] that “The Board notes that there was no evidence to connect any of the defendants with the activities of Juror X”. We hope that this will be a sufficient answer for the charges and counter charges about corruption in the jury system and unfounded attacks upon the integrity of the accused and the defence counsel (at trial and appeal) in relation to the activities of Juror X. WE NOTE THAT ANY ATTEMPT TO ASSOCIATE OUR CLIENTS WITH ALLGED OFFERS MADE BY JUROR X IS BOUND TO ACT ADVERSLY AGAINST THEM IN THE MINDS OF POTENTIAL JURORS SHOULD THE MATRTER BE RETRIED
We also note media reports about the DPP’s published view that a campaign of misinformation is aimed at intimidating her office after the Kartel ruling. We are totally unaware of such a campaign and are not a part of it. We look forward to arguing this case in the Court of Appeal and would never dream of taking any of the action outlined by the learned DPP.
None of us, the Defence Counsel, in this matter, intend to bring the office of the DPP ‘into disrepute’ or to rile up any wayward soul to take any (in)action against the crown or any public servant in this matter. We, as ministers of Justice, are only focused on a just outcome in this matter. We genuinely believe that this fair outcome, after almost 13 years of the accused men being in custody, is their discharge without a retrial.
The DPP’s actions in this matter are a matter of public record. They were no doubt influenced by her own personal view of what the justice of the case required. The Board, in paragraph [47] of its decision, noted that the “prosecution had approved of the course which the judge followed.” It further noted that the ‘course followed by the judge was a material irregularity in the course of the trial giving rise to a miscarriage of justice.’ Any comments made by us in the past simply underline the importance of the DPP/or her office learning the lessons from this teachable moment.
We suspect that our view of the just outcome of the retrial issue differs significantly from that ofthe DPP and/other sectors of the public. We will focus our attention on preparing our submissions for the Court of Appeal and acting as responsible legal professionals.
We will refrain from making unsubstantiated emotional attacks or counterattacks on this matter since this will not assist the court or the administration of justice in ensuring a just outcome, nor will it advance the best interests of our client, the public or justice. We have no doubt that our learned DPP will take the action she deems fit in all the circumstances of this case.
We urge all other actors, public and private, to allow the Court of Appeal to be properlyseized of this matter and to refrain from seeking to try and (re)try this matter in the public sphere or on social media since it will not advance the best interests of justice or of any of the relevant parties in this matter.
