What the … Sudoku aborts trial
From SMH …
AFTER 105 witnesses and three months of evidence, a drug trial costing $1 million was aborted yesterday when it emerged that jurors had been playing Sudoku since the trial’s second week.
More than 20 police gave evidence in the case, in which the two accused faced a common charge of conspiracy to manufacture a commercial quantity of amphetamines. One faced further firearms and drug possession indictments. The prosecution and defence were due to deliver final addresses to the jury this week.
But last week, as one of the accused was giving evidence, he saw the jury forewoman playing what he thought was Sudoku. His co-accused saw it too, and the defence counsel, Adam Morison and Michael Coroneos, made a joint application for a discharge.
four or five jurors had brought in the Sudoku sheets and photocopied them to play during the trial and then compare their results during meal breaks.
She admitted to having spent more than half of her time in court playing the game. The trial, which started on March 4, has cost more than $1 million, including counsels’ fees, staff wages and court running costs for 60 days of hearings. Judge Zahra, who had previously commended the jury for its apparent diligence, told the forewoman that the Sudoku players had let down their fellow jurors and all involved in the trial.
There is no offence under the NSW Jury Act for playing games or being inattentive to a degree that causes a trial to be abandoned.
The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must now decide whether to recommence the proceedings against the men.
Thanks to Jess for forwarding me this one.
UPDATE : A murder trial has been halted, and will have to start again due to a ruling by the British law lords on anonymous witnesses, from Aunty …
Law Lords ruled that defendants had a right to know the identity of those testifying against them.
Four witnesses had given evidence under false names and from behind screens during the two-month trial of the two men accused of killing Charles Butler in Dagenham, east London, in 2004.
In their ruling, the Law Lords argued it has been a fundamental principle of English Law that the accused should be able to see his accusers and challenge them.
Judge Paget said it would be “frankly impossible” to ask the jury to forget what they had heard from anonymous witnesses.
He told the jury: “You have heard evidence from a number of witnesses that you should not have heard.”
the Law Lords had given their ruling “because of the difficulties caused to the defence if they do not know the identity of witnesses against them and are deprived of investigating why these people may be inaccurate or, worst, untruthful”.
“It’s fundamentally important that we are able to protect, in very, very rare cases, anonymity of witnesses, otherwise we’re not able to get justice for people.”
“Intimidation of witnesses is a very serious problem, but a balance must be found which protects them without compromising the integrity of the trial.”
I have to say in all fairness that I agree with the law lords ruling, civil liberties are already eroding faster than ever in the UK, and there is a real threat of some kafkaesque bureaucratic legal system. On the other hand I appreciate the seriousness of needing to protect witnesses. I am not sure what the solution is that balances both of these factors, but I have faith that there is one, I doubt however we shall see it practiced any time soon due to many pending cases which can be thrown out, or even old ones such as the automated speeding ticket.