Ex-charity chief says her jury freed rapist over sentencing fears
THE former head of a leading justice charity has admitted being part of a jury that acquitted a suspected rapist over concerns about the length of sentence he would receive if convicted.
Frances Crook, who spent 35 years as chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, made the comments on Twitter during a debate on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill going through Parliament.
In a post about the potential impact of longer custodial sentences being handed out, she said she had twice served on juries that had failed to convict partly because they had been concerned about the outcome for the defendant.
She said one of the cases involved a rape prosecution, while the other was a possession of cannabis allegation.
Ms Crook wrote: “I’ve sat on two juries. Both times we found not guilty, partly because of fear of the likely disproportionate prison sentence.”
She added: “Increasing prison terms could have unintended consequence of letting more rapists go free.”
The comment sparked an immediate backlash, with some critics expressing outrage that an alleged rapist may have been allowed to walk free because of concern over his potential sentence, rather than on the basis of the evidence.
One user wrote: “How dare you? Considering what sentence a convicted person gets is not a jury member’s job. That’s the job of the judge.
“Aren’t you ashamed that by applying that thought process you have contributed to a guilty person going free to commit crime again. That’s shameful behaviour.”
Others warned Ms Crook that she could also face prosecution for discussing the details of a jury’s deliberations.
All jurors are required to adhere to a strict set of rules to ensure that the administration of justice is fair.
Before any criminal case begins jurors are given a written handout which states: “As a juror you have taken a legal oath or affirmation to try the defendant based only on the evidence you hear in court.”
Harriet Wistrich, from the Centre for Women’s Justice, said: “If this is an issue that is causing juries not to convict then it should be discussed but perhaps Twitter is not the best forum for that debate.”
Jurors are also warned against ever discussing how or why they reached a decision with anyone outside the deliberation room.
The written rules state: “Even after the trial is over you must not discuss what was said or done by you or any other member of the jury while the jury was in the deliberating room trying to reach a verdict, unless it is for the purpose of an official investigation into the conduct of any juror.”
Finally, jurors are warned: “If you do not follow the rules in this notice, you may be in contempt of court and committing a criminal offence.”
Ms Crook said both cases had taken place many years ago and insisted she had not broken the rules because she had not discussed the specifics of either case and neither one was identifiable.