Advanced search

Woman goes to to jail for Facebooking defendant

(28 Posts)
MonkeyJungleConga Thu 16-Jun-11 13:53:46


She caused the collapse of a £6m trial. The girl she contacted got 2 months suspended, she got 8 months inside. She has children (but I don't know how old) so I'm not sure this is the right result but I agree she deserved a proper punishment, so don't know what else she could have got. Some people are really bloody stooopid aren't they.

chippy47 Thu 16-Jun-11 13:57:12

Yes they are. And judging by her fb comments and conversations about the trial I would suggest ditching the jury system altogether. Hopefully it will never happen but if my future was in her hands I would be seriously alarmed.

MonkeyJungleConga Thu 16-Jun-11 14:00:44

What would you have instead of a jury system then?

chippy47 Thu 16-Jun-11 14:15:40

Crackpot old loon of a judge -reckon I'd have more of a chance of getting off.

ScarlettIsWalking Thu 16-Jun-11 14:19:22

Stupid woman. What low intelligence must she have.

mayorquimby Thu 16-Jun-11 16:30:07

don't see a problem tbf. Seems proportionate.

NormanTebbit Thu 16-Jun-11 16:31:30

France doesn't have a jury system

DaisySteiner Thu 16-Jun-11 16:31:32

The girl she contacted had been in prison on remand since the collapse of the trial I believe which is why she had her sentence suspended.

TrillianAstra Thu 16-Jun-11 16:36:20

She should have been punished, she must have known what she was doing was wrong, but she is hardly a danger to society and I think there should be an alternative to prison.

thebestisyettocome Thu 16-Jun-11 16:40:04

Absolutely right that she was imprisoned.

hmm at the idea of replacing the jury system.

RitaMorgan Thu 16-Jun-11 16:43:29

Disproportionate sentence. Prison should be for violent offenders/threats to society not stupid but harmless women.

TrillianAstra Thu 16-Jun-11 16:44:04

I'd rather she was made to do some kind of very unpleasant (therefore it's a good punishment) but useful community service. That way she'd be doing something constructive rather than costing a lot of money to be in prison. It's not as if she is likely to continue to commit more crimes.

thebestisyettocome Thu 16-Jun-11 18:16:03

I don't agree that it's disproportionate or that she can simply be written off as a 'stupid but harmless woman.'

She knew what she did was wrong but went ahead anyway and caused the collapse of a six million pound trial. Police officers, lawyers etc will have thrown their hearts and souls into that case. She ruined all that effort with her actions.

Pedallleur Thu 16-Jun-11 20:18:01

She was in contempt of court - a custodial sentence was inevitable. She cost the taxpayer £6 million. Why should she be on litter patrol?

Isitreally Thu 16-Jun-11 23:11:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Animation Fri 17-Jun-11 10:38:27

I don't know.

Yes, she should be punished somehow - but violent criminals don't get 8 months in prison.

Geordieminx Fri 17-Jun-11 10:42:26

£6 million wasted because of her stupidity.

scurryfunge Fri 17-Jun-11 10:47:43

A custodial sentence is the only realistic deterrent -jurors would risk a fine or community service as it is no big deal to some. A prison sentence gets the message through to jurors quite nicely, totally deserved.

xiaojoiii Sat 18-Jun-11 02:29:47

Message deleted

southofthethames Sat 18-Jun-11 06:51:17

She broke the law. Contacting a defendant on FB is no different from picking up the phone and calling her. If by causing a mistrial she potentially enables a dangerous murderer to go free, then she's abetting a violent criminal and allowing him/her to continue committing violent crimes. Juror misdeeds can lead to violent criminals going scot free. They are not attending a party; this is criminal court. Their roles in the trial are quite significant. Detectives and police officers have risked their lives bringing this particular drug gang (and their accomplices) to justice.The judge's decision was appropriate.

reallytired Sat 18-Jun-11 09:31:38

I think the jail sentence is right. Her stupidy caused the trial to collapse. Her stupidity perverted the course of justice. Hopefully other jurors will not follow her example.

Hulababy Sat 18-Jun-11 09:35:30

She knew the score. Jurors are told exactly, and very clearly, what they can and cannot do. They know they can't contact others in this, or any other, way. She chose to do it despite being told all of this in no uncertain terms at the time. She made the decision to break the terms of being a juror. She knew it would be a serious offence. But she chose to do it regardless.

She cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money.

She has to deal with the consequences.

xiaojree Sat 18-Jun-11 13:16:53

Message deleted

xiaojree Sat 18-Jun-11 13:17:05

Message deleted

ilove Sat 18-Jun-11 13:20:03

reported xiaojree

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: