They should respect the hand that feeds them. And I mean respect. If they want to be clear about having no leakage at all, then it should all be held in Camra.

Secrecy and Justice, and enathema to the basic tenent of law.

“Justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done”

They are grabbing at straws here, blaming the blogosphere. What utter crap.

And this from the offices that chose to ignore all the evidence about the Dark, and malignant evidence of misdeeds by Winston Peters, and complicit with Labour Hierarchy.

Think that the SG offices should be professional and just STFU. Your opinion is not welcome here in freedomland.

It’s a sad day when we even have to consider something like that, it sounds like the minutes of a meeting from the PRC Communist Party annual conference when they allowed Google into the country for the first time. I understand your dilemma though.
Unless the jury is sequestered for the duration of the trial there is not a chance they will not hear some viewpoints on the trial at hand. What a crock of elitist bollocks from the SG and the legal profession who agree with it.
In disputed cases it has merit though even then it will not stop people from discussing it at work, bbq or when out socially. The blogosphere is just an extension of these areas. There was nothing said about this case that could remotely effect the outcome, it is a pretty rare type. If enough of us ignore the fools amongst our politicians, judiciary and so called “leaders” there is fuck all they can do about it. Bring it on.

Jurors should be free to say whatever they like after the trial is over, they should be paid properly just as the judges and lawyers are, and they should be free to ask whatever questions they like and hear whatever evidence they want to.

And the public should be free and absolutely encouraged to give the courts hell – that is the only way they will ever be improved.

All that said, people should not comment on guilt or innocence during a trial nor advance anything as evidence other than what has peen presented in court.

More important: in no way could you comment on the conduct of the trial, or on the evidence given, or make any comment whatsoever. You reported the facts. You could neither say implicitly or explicitly if you thought the accused/defendant was guilty or innocent.

David: I confess to being alarmed when I saw your thread last week, and the number of people commenting on the Weatherston tgrial as they did.

Whatever we might think of our legal system, it is the one we have, and we like to think it is designed to ensure that anyone caught up in it gets a fair suck of the sav. It partly retains its integrity by our respecting it.

If it doesn’t work properly — and it’s a human-made institution, so it isn’t perfect — then we have means to change it. We have a Parliament for that.

I don’t think we help it when we out here decide to do the job of the courts. If we do, then we’re heading for a form of mob justice. It is not about suppressing free speech and comment. It’s about protecting the court, and the persons standing in the dock before it.

In my opinion he is, but that doesn’t make it a fact until the verdict is in.

Having said that I’d be at the front of the queue to throw the switch.

A woman who lost $3000 in wages while serving on the jury at the 13-week Bain murder retrial says jurors urgently need income protection.

Jurors get $310 in the hand for the first week of a trial and $400 for each subsequent week. Jurors can apply for hardship money, but have to show an inability to pay normal bills.

Another juror in the Bain retrial received a $1100-a-week top-up when he was able to meet the hardship threshold.

“In the case of a long trial, I don’t believe financial hardship should be the only factor for a top-up payment. I managed to pay my bills, but the loss of that $3000 still had a significant effect on us,” the juror who lost money said.

Her employer had organised for a replacement while she was away on jury service and was not prepared to top up her jury money.

“I don’t blame him.

“He didn’t see why he should subsidise the Bain trial by paying my wages as well. I agree. But I don’t think I should have to subsidise the trial either.”

Disparities in pay around the jury table had soon become apparent, the juror said.

“While some continued to earn their regular salaries, with employers topping up their court pay, others actually came out ahead financially. Either they were retired or collected their full pay, plus the jury fee.”

The juror said she would not have worried if the retrial had run only a week or two, but the losses she incurred over 13 weeks were “surely beyond the call of duty”.

The possibility of losing wages was not listed on the jury summons as a reason for excuse from jury service, she said.

“Some broke even, some made a profit, and some were out of pocket. How can that be just and fair?”

Justice Minister Simon Power said yesterday he wanted to ensure that juries continued to broadly reflect New Zealand society as a whole.

“I have asked officials to provide advice on whether any improvements can be made to the current system to ensure this continues to be the case.”

In a comprehensive review of the jury system in 2001, the Law Commission found low fees were one of the impediments to getting a better range of people on juries.

Putting the costs on employers would be a significant burden, especially for small businesses during long trials, it said.

That said, that I did wonder at the time if you weren’t walking close to the line when posting on the Weatherston trial … especially by leaving the post open to comments. Problem is that you are deemed responsible not just for what you think about the case, but also whatever the sewer throws up as well. The point is that a defendant is entitled to a verdict from the jury that is solely based on the evidence presented at trial, as discussed and deliberated on by the jury alone. And the danger with having a public chorus of judgment on the issue is that, no matter what instructions given to the jury about consulting media/internet reports, they may ignore these and go searching for what others think on the issue. And then you may get verdicts that reflect societal blood-lust, rather than considered reflection of evidence. Which is mob-rule, not criminal justice. So yes … freedom of speech is limited (for a period) in the name of another important social institution – a fair and unbiased system of ruling on guilt or not-guilt (which doesn’t mean innocence).

After a verdict is given, then most criticism of the case/its outcome is fine – the judges on an appeal court are presumed to have more self-control than a jury does! But note, if you overstep in your criticism and “scandalise the court”, then you may be back in the area of contempt!

its pathetic – how about the MSM selective reporting of evidence? The Bain case was a good example where any word Michael Reed muttered was widely reported – with a certain spin to lead the public in a direction.

If they don’t want people to comment – don’t show the trials

I have served on a jury and the onus was on jury members to steer clear of media comments while the case was in progress.

I’d like to know if the meaning of trial process extends to sentencing or stops once the trial itself is over and a verdict is reached.

The S-G is being a bit prissy me thinks. Mustn’t have much work to do.

CHUCK:..Fox News frequently has former Prosecutors, former Judges, and other experts commenting on noteworthy cases in progress, some almost amounting to roleplay. Great TV it is too.