You say ( Hounded for homosexuality , 15 February) John Gielgud's 1953 conviction for "persistently importuning for immoral purposes" was "leaked" to the press. This makes it sound as if there were trials in camera for gay men. In those days there were plenty of court reporters – always on the lookout in magistrates courts for well-known men who had been entrapped or caught by the police in lavatories and open spaces. The police liked to earn a little money by tipping off newspapers about such men. In Gielgud's case a court reporter was in situ and recognised him, even though Sir John described himself as a clerk. The story was in the Evening Standard the same day. Winston Churchill, responding to the witch-hunt mood of the times, suggested at a cabinet meeting in 1954 that a backbencher should be found to propose a bill which would restrict the reporting of trials for gay offences. The unworkable idea of course came to nothing.

Nicholas de Jongh

London

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/18/gielgud-trial-gay-men-court

A high court judge has blocked a strike in Wales as BA cabin crew brace themselves for a legal challenge to its strike ballot

A high court judge has blocked a strike by workers at one of Britain's busiest ports, as British Airways cabin crew brace themselves for a legal challenge to next week's strike ballot result.

Staff at Milford Haven Port Authority, in Pembrokeshire, west Wales, became the latest victims of the 1992 Trade Union Act when a two-day strike due to start tomorrow was injuncted. The ruling against the Unite trade union echoed a legal block brought against the same union over a planned 12-day Christmas strike by BA cabin crew in December last year. Disgruntled air stewards are holding a second ballot which closes on Monday and BA is braced for a yes vote, with some Unite members pushing for walkout lasting at least 12 days.

A Unite official said the high court was now actively intervening in trade union disputes. "The fundamental issue here is the high court intervening yet again, as they did in the BA cabin crew dispute, to undermine our members' democratic decision to take industrial action," said Brendan Gold, Unite's national secretary for docks and waterways. "It is hugely frustrating going through the correct legal procedures to call this action then to have the courts intervene to block it."

However, while both court rulings referred to the 1992 act, the Milford Haven injunction represents a temporary brake on industrial action that could still go ahead next week. Unlike the BA case, the Milford Haven strike vote, over a pensions dispute, has not been deemed unlawful. Instead, Mr Justice Sweeney found that notices of industrial action by 50 employees at Milford Haven did not comply with the act, which demands stringent accuracy when notifying employers of walkouts. Unite said that it will stage a 12-hour walkout at the Britain's sixth largest port next week, in line with the Trade Union Act which requires giving seven days notice before striking.

In the case of the BA cabin crew, the ballot was ruled unlawful in its entirety, forcing the union to restage the ballot. Unite fell foul of the act last year when it balloted about 800 cabin crew who subsequently took voluntary redundancy. The act requires unions to give the company accurate voting information, including the number of voters and where they work in the company.

Officials at Unite and its cabin crew branch, Bassa, have combed through membership details of more than 12,000 cabin crew to eradicate data glitches but it is understood that the union has received several legal letters from BA about the new ballot since January.

The RMT, the rail industry's largest trade union, said industrial action at train operators London Midland, Virgin Trains, East Coast and London Underground had been delayed by challenges under the 1992 Act. "The arsenal of legal weapons ranged against the workforce by bosses seeking to wreck industrial action is growing by the day," said Bob Crow, RMT general secretary.

The number of injunctions under the act has nearly trebled over the past year after a case in 2008 saw Metrobus, a London bus operator, win a case claiming that a strike ballot was unlawful due to polling irregularities. BA lawyers able to structure their case on similar principles secured an injunction that overturned a 92% majority on an 80% turnout.

Talks between BA and Unite and Bassa officials are continuing. However, a yes vote on Monday could see a strike begin from 1 March although Unite has ruled out taking industrial action over Easter. The high court is also due to rule imminently on a legal case brought by Unite in which the union is arguing that cuts to staffing levels on all BA flights breach contractual law.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/17/court-rules-against-milford-haven-port-strike

The jury system has been attacked for being prejudiced and unfair, but an in-depth study has revealed a different picture

Professor Cheryl Thomas's report, Are juries fair? , is an impressive piece of research. Thomas presented 41 all-white juries with the same simulated assault trial, varying only the race of the defendant and victim; she looked at statistics on all jury verdicts in England and Wales in 2007; and she surveyed jurors following real cases. Her findings acquit juries of the bias they are often wrongly charged with.

Juries convict on about two-thirds of charges, Thomas finds, and seem to take seriously their duty to reach a true verdict according to the evidence. Conviction rates reflect the evidential nature of cases: highest where there tends to be physical and documentary evidence, such as in deception cases, and lowest in assault and similar cases where evidence may be more personal and contradictory.

Importantly, the report refutes the common assumption that juries are racist. The conviction rate for black defendants, at 67%, is not much higher than that for white and Asian defendants; it may be partly explained by the finding that ethnic minority defendants are more likely to plead not guilty.

Crucially, though, Thomas's simulated trials show that all-white juries are not more likely to convict black defendants, or to acquit white defendants accused of racist assaults. In fact, it seems all juries are more likely to convict white defendants, and notably, some white juries (in Nottingham, Thomas's findings show) are more likely to convict a white defendant if the victim of the assault was black or Asian. As Thomas says, the jury is one element in the criminal justice system that seems to treat black and Asian defendants fairly.

Thomas also refutes earlier findings – based on a much smaller case sample – about rape cases. She finds juries' conviction rate in rape cases is more than 50% – higher than for manslaughter and GBH. The low proportion of rape allegations resulting in conviction remains a real concern. But too often, proposals for reform focus on overcoming juries' perceived unwillingness to convict . Thomas's research suggests the perception is unfounded, and raises real questions about that approach.

Finally, Thomas finds that jurors often misunderstand judges' legal directions on issues such as self-defence – but are helped by being given a written summary, something that should surely now be done in all cases. We obviously need to keep the law as clear as possible, and to limit convoluted directions. We should trust juries to decide on the rights, wrongs and reasonableness of people's actions. Precisely the wrong way to go would be to insist on more complex legislation requiring judges to explain, for instance, the difference between disproportion and gross disproportion in self-defence .

The jury system is attacked from all sides – by those who believe juries cannot cope with fraud cases, by those who think they are prejudiced and now even by those who think them harsh on householders who defend themselves. Juries deserve our support, and this report suggests changes that could make their verdicts safer and better. Suspicion of juries, though, is merely a modern fear of democracy. Thomas's report vindicates many people's instinctive conviction that jury trial is the vital guarantee of fairness in the criminal justice system. Justice is less at risk from the prejudices of juries than from those of professionals and politicians.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/feb/17/jury-trial-attack-study

Websites such as Wikipedia and Facebook are encroaching on the legal world and creating chaos in the courtroom

There are a few shockingly stupid people out there, not many more so than the juror in Burnley who in the jury room on a trial involving sexual assault and child abduction. Then the was the juror in the American state of Maryland whose consultation of Wikipedia on a matter of scientific terminology led to a murder conviction being overturned.

In one so-called "Google mistrial" last year, an embarrassed Floridian juror confessed to conduting his own internet research during a large federal drugs case, only for the court to then discover that eight of the other jurors had been doing exactly the same thing.

Nor is it just jurors. A North Carolina judge befriended on Facebook one of the lawyers in a trial last year so that they could chat about the case. Additionally there's the , who quit his job after being found to have put online such portentous drivel while adjudicating cases as, "What a day! Ludlow courthouse is ancient. We sit in the Gods passing sentence on the criminal fraternity."

If you'd been in front of him and then found a tweet explaining the reasoning behind the judgment, you might not be impressed. At this point I'd like to say that if you're reading this because you've Googled me at some time in the future and I'm on a trial you're deciding, you're a muppet, but I'm a reliable lawyer whose poor set-upon client/upstanding arm of the state is to be believed by you and your peers.

The desire to look up information is understandable. Trials rarely hear the full life histories of the parties, and often exclude out of fairness the previous convictions of those giving evidence. At times a jury may be asked to leave the room so a point of law can be argued without fear of swaying the jury or exposing them to information which is deemed to be excluded.

I go on IMDb on my phone when I'm considering a DVD in the shop, so I can see how the thought of jumping on the internet to look for news stories involving the people in your trial is a very easy one. But there is a difference between my desire not to waste an evening watching Wanted and jurors searching maps, news stories or databases of publicly compiled forensic jargon. It is that the rules of evidence and the contempt of court laws are there to try and prevent an uneven playing field between the prosecution and the defence. The separation between the investigative and judicial branches of the state must be maintained to keep errors to their lowest possible level, to provide checks on investigative procedure.

Part of the problem must also be the failure of the system to adequately explain these rules and the reasons for them, and to put the intricate law and sometimes complicated facts in cases to the jury in a digestible format. This week's study revealing that two-thirds of jurors do not understand the directions given to them by judges might well explain the temptation, in the face of a wholly unusual and imposing legal environment, to look up the answers, rather than put up a hand and ask for more help.

There is also the intrinsically human desire to seek validation of one's views, to read the news reports to see if your reading of the witnesses and the facts is more widely held. To this extent the internet risks becoming another arena of litigation, and crisis PR firms might be part of a broader strategy employed in, say, a libel trial. That is why "contempt" laws on the reporting of trials exist to prevent prejudice in the case by external noise, and why it was so dismal to see politicians jeopardising the trials of their fellow members by talking earlier this month so specifically about the cases in public.

The internet can offer nothing of benefit to those who hear and decide the facts of criminal cases in coming to a just conclusion. Jurors must face stricter punishment for their amateur investigations which sometimes cost the state huge amounts of money in mistrials. Other participants in the justice system must do more to clarify, and therefore quell the temptation to seek help on MySpace. Unless we wish to do away with trial by jury, or the internet, the answer is to make it clear that the two don't mix well at all.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/17/jurors-trial-internet-use

Senior UK judge predicts changes to court system after study finds two in three jurors do not fully understand legal directions

A senior judge today predicted fundamental changes to the court system following a groundbreaking official study into the jury process.

The research – based on 69,000 cases over a two-year period – found that two in three jurors did not fully understood legal directions given by judges as they retired to consider their verdicts.

It also revealed that more than one in 10 jurors carried out their own investigations online about a case in defiance of trial judge orders.

Judge Keith Cutler, senior circuit judge based in Winchester, said the study was likely to result in a significant shift in the way in which judges give direction to jurors.

"I think that the judges will learn that they must give more written direction in nearly all cases, which is something we already do in murder and fraud cases," Cutler told the BBC.

In relation to judges' directions – where a judge gives crucial guidance to jurors about what they have heard – the research team asked jurors at Winchester crown court to recall two key questions in a case in which a defendant was charged with violence.

The first was whether it was necessary for the defendant to defend himself and the secondly whether reasonable force was used.

Only 31% of jurors accurately identified both questions, the report, called Are Juries Fair? , found.

A further 48% correctly identified one of the two questions, and one-fifth did not correctly identify either question.

Researchers found a written summary of the judge's directions on the law for jurors improved their comprehension of the law.

Cutler said he was not surprised that jurors could not remember legalese phrases when questioned after the case had concluded.

But he added that it did not mean jurors – who were able to take notes throughout a trial and question parts they did not understand – were unable to comprehend issues in a more layman manner.

Other findings of the report, by Professor Cheryl Thomas, of University College London, were that there was no evidence to suggest juries were biased against black or Asian defendants.

Researchers studied verdicts at Winchester and Nottingham courts – where juries are frequently made up of entirely white jurors – and concluded that race had no impact on verdicts.

Rates of conviction varied substantially according to offence, with some of the most serious offences, such as manslaughter, having the lowest conviction rates.

Offences where police had the strongest direct evidence carried the highest conviction rates, including making indecent photographs of a child (89%), death by dangerous driving (85%) and drug possession with intent to supply (84%).

Thomas said some of the report's findings contradicted common perceptions about jury conviction rates, particularly in the case of rape trials.

"Contrary to popular belief and previous official reports, juries convict more often than they acquit in rape cases (55% conviction rate)," the report said.

"While there is no doubt that the proportion of rape complaints to police that end in conviction is extremely low, it is also clear that this cannot be attributed to juries' failure to convict in rape cases."

Conviction rates were 47% for attempted murder, 48% for grievous bodily harm and 48% for manslaughter, the research showed.

Women on a jury were more likely to change their vote during deliberations, with two-thirds of all jurors who changed their minds being female.

"Female jurors appeared tougher on defendants than male jurors before jury deliberations started, but more open to persuasion to acquit in deliberations," the report said.

The report also showed that 26% of jurors saw internet reports of the trial and 12% actively looked for information about their case.

Jurors are directed by the judge at the start of a trial not to look for any information about the case in order to minimise the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

In response to the study, the justice secretary, Jack Straw, said: "The jury system is working, and working well.

"The study's findings on the fairness of jury decisions, including for people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, will help to maintain public confidence in juries and the jury system. "But we cannot allow complacency about the justice system. We will carefully consider the recommendations for helping jurors do their job to the best of their ability."

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/jurors-judges-legal-advice-report

Researchers used simulations with jurors from real trials and analysed more than 68,000 verdicts over two years

The Are Juries Fair report is the most detailed research of its kind. It used case simulations with more than 1,000 jurors from real trials, analysed more than 68,000 verdicts over two years and carried out post-verdict surveys with 668 jurors. Among the main findings were:

Juror comprehension

Only 31% of jurors fully understood the judge's oral directions, although over half thought the directions were easy to understand. Younger jurors (aged 18-19) were most able to understand the directions (49%).

The proportion who fully understood legal questions in a case rose to 48% when given written instructions. The report called for the judiciary to issue jurors with written aide - memoires on the law in all cases and further research "as a matter of priority" into the most effective way to improve juror comprehension.

Conviction rates

"Juries overall appear efficient and effective," the report said, reaching a verdict by deliberation on 89% of charges. Juries convict on 64% of all charges. Less than 1% of sworn juries are discharged. The highest conviction rates are for making indecent photographs of children (89%), causing death by dangerous driving (84%), falsification (79%), murder (76%) drugs (74%) and theft (70%). Among the lowest are threats to kill (36%), attempted murder (47%) and manslaughter (48%).

The report notes that conviction rates are highest where there is direct evidence and lower where jurors have to be sure of a defendant's state of mind.

No court in the country had higher rates for acquittal than conviction, the report said, dispelling myths that juries in some courts rarely convict. However, there was a difference in jury conviction rates from court to court, which the reports suggested could be related to differences in public opinion to crime or a variation in police evidence gathering in different areas. The report called for more research.

Juries convict in 55% of rape cases, the report found, contradicting previous studies based on smaller samples. Conviction rates in cases where men were victims were 77% compared to 47% for female victims.

The more charges a defendant faces, the greater the chance he or she will be convicted on at least one of them, the report finds.

Do all-white juries discriminate?

The study found little evidence that juries are unfair. It found no case to suggest that all-white juries discriminated against black- and ethnic-minority defendants. All-white juries at Winchester crown court had almost identical verdicts for white and ethnic minority defendants. Similar juries in Nottingham struggled to reach a verdict involving ethnic minority defendants.

White jurors on ethnically mixed juries had lower conviction rates. White jurors in ethnically mixed areas (Nottingham) were significantly more likely to convict a white defendant accused of assaulting an ethnic minority victim rather than a white person.

Jury impropriety

Almost half (48%) of jurors said they were uncertain what to do if something improper occurred in the jury room. Two-thirds of those jurors called for more information about how to conduct deliberations.

In high-profile cases, 26% of jurors said they had seen information on the internet and 12% admitted looking for it – an activity strictly banned. The study called for more research on whether jurors understood the potential miscarriage-of-justice implications of their actions, and whether they discussed the case on social networking sites.

Media reporting

More than three in 10 jurors in high-profile cases remembered pre-trial media coverage of the case. Two-thirds of those jurors could not remember any particular media slant. One in five of those who remembered media reports of the case found it difficult to put it out of their minds.

Findings

The study concluded that jurors want and need new tools to better understand the court process. "A concerted effort should be made to identify the most effective means of ensuring the highest level of juror understanding in criminal jury trials."

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/juries-report-main-findings

Contrary to common perceptions, study reveals jurors are not racially biased and they convict in a majority of rape cases

Ministry of Justice research has debunked some myths about juries, including the idea that they discriminate against black defendants or won't ­convict rapists, or that there are some crown courts where the police are unlikely to get convictions.

The study – Are Juries Fair? – was ­carried out by Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College, London, and is based for the first time on interviews with more than 1,000 jurors after their cases. It also undertakes a separate study of 68,000 jury verdicts to examine the sensitive issue of how juries make their decisions.

The report delivers a strong endorsement of the role of the jury in the criminal justice system, concluding that juries in England and Wales were found to be fair, effective and efficient.

It does recommend, however, that more could be done to help them perform their task in the wake of concerns raised by Lord Judge, the lord chief justice, that jurors are having increasing difficulties in listening to evidence and understanding oral instructions.

The study also looked for the first time at the impact of pre-trial media reporting on cases, but the findings appear to be inconclusive as to the extent coverage actually influences what goes on in the jury room. The study found that 35% of jurors in high-profile cases remembered pre-trial coverage, but only 20% of that group, or 7% of the total sample, said they found it difficult to put the reports out of their mind during the case.

The study did, however, find that a quarter of jurors sitting in high-profile cases admitted to looking for information on the internet about their case while it was going on, despite being told by the judge not to do so.

The research included case simulations with 41 all-white juries at Winchester and Nottingham crown courts which showed no tendency for them to convict a black or Asian defendant more than a white one.

But it did find that all-white juries in Nottingham, a racially diverse area, appeared to be more sensitive in cases involving racial conflict and were more likely to convict a white defendant accused of assaulting a black victim.

In rape cases the study found that, contrary to popular belief and previous official reports, juries convict more often than they acquit, with a 55% conviction rate in crown court rape trials. It said that a previous Home Office study which found that they were more likely to acquit than convict was based on only 181 verdicts in a small number of courts compared with the 4,310 verdicts in this study.

It concludes that juries are not primarily responsible for the low conviction rate following rape allegations and that juries are more reluctant to convict in cases of attempted murder and grievous bodily harm than in rape cases.

The research also dismisses claims that men sitting on juries are less likely than women to listen to the arguments and change their minds.

Overall, it gives a strong endorsement of the jury system, saying that they appear to try cases on the evidence and the law, with those cases based on the strongest direct evidence having the highest conviction rates.

Professor Thomas said: "This research shows that juries in England and Wales were to be found to be fair, effective and efficient – and should lay to rest any lingering concerns that racially-balanced juries are needed to ensure fairness in trials with black and minority ethnic defendants or racial evidence."The study demonstrates that in-depth research into what goes on in the jury room is possible despite the Contempt of Court Act confidentiality clause on their proceedings.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/17/juries-fairness-research

There is no reason why every mercy killing has to be punished as if it were a cold-blooded murder

Brave, brazen or unhinged – whatever view one takes of Ray Gosling's decision to own up to a mercy killing on regional television, at first blush it appears more likely to retard than advance the cause of euthanasia reform. The veteran presenter spoke poignantly, and with apparent sincerity, about smothering the life out of a lover who was suffering gravely from Aids, at a time when treatment was ineffective, and with the medics insisting no more could be done. But he later pushed frankness to the point of insensitivity, describing the dead man as his "bit on the side". Even if his conscience demands total honesty, this tone hardly helps his standing, and his account of the facts could leave him seriously exposed to the law.

It seems Mr Gosling was moved to end his lover's life on the basis of an informal discussion which the two men had held in the past. That offers scant protection from prosecution under the new CPS guidelines for assisted suicide, which indicate the importance, in any decision to drop proceedings, of a direct personal request for the specific assistance provided. They indicate leniency for "minor assistance", suggesting it is safer to help a sick man swallow pills than to suffocate him, and they implicitly respect the role of close relatives in assessing whether a life is worth living, which hardly helps Mr Gosling, since he says some of his lover's family were unaware of what happened.

In any event, the assisted suicide guidelines – which were issued after the multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy forced the hand of prosecutors – may be less relevant than the murder laws. Two separate cases last month saw mothers convicted for helping their dis­abled children to die, but Kay Gilderdale walked away with a suspended sentence for helping her suicidal daughter to finish the job, whereas Frances Inglis went down for murder after administering an overdose to her brain-damaged son. The clearest difference was that Ms Gilderdale could demonstrate that she was acting on her daughter's wishes, whereas Ms Inglis could not.

If Mr Gosling is likewise unable to produce evidence, he could also be vulnerable to a murder charge and the mandatory life sentence that it carries – an outcome that would be unjust. Ending someone's life without express consent must remain illegal, not least as familial judgments can be warped by greed, but there is no reason why every mercy killing has to be punished as if it were a cold-blooded murder. Such messy outcomes would become less common if sick individuals could give clear instructions while they still had a voice, and know the medics would be empowered to act on these. That is why, despite first appearances, the strange case of Ray Gosling underlines the case for reform.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/17/ray-gosling-confessional-television

Henrik Thomsen to launch libel suit against GE Healthcare after firm's claim that he defamed it over Omniscan drug

A leading medical scientist being sued under British libel laws for criticising a giant corporation has found an innovative way to hit back: he is to launch a counterclaim for libel.

Henrik Thomsen, a Danish radiologist, is to launch the claim against GE Healthcare, a subsidiary of the US conglomerate General Electric, after the company accused him of defamation and issued a press release calling him a liar.

Thomsen, who is "angry", according to his lawyer, Andrew Stephenson, clashed with GE Healthcare, which has offices in Amersham, Buckinghamshire, over claims that its bestselling drug Omniscan, injected as a contrast agent into patients undergoing MRI scans could cause crippling side-effects.

Thomsen says an epidemic of a rare muscular condition called NSF struck at his Copenhagen hospital, leaving 20 patients permanently in wheelchairs.

The outbreak was linked eventually to Omniscan, which contains gadolinium, a highly toxic heavy metal believed to affect a small group of people whose kidneys do not work properly to excrete the toxin.

Several hundred such cases of NSF have now emerged worldwide, leading to lawsuits against the manufacturers in the US. The first legal action in Britain, where there are believed to be at least 28 cases, is being launched this month by Margaret Roxburgh, from Glasgow. She says she was crippled after being injected with Omniscan in a hospital on 5 September 2006.

Thomsen, who has made repeated presentations at conferences and written papers about possible side-effects of gadolinium, is regarded by GE Healthcare as an unwelcome crusader against its product.

The company wrote complaining about his allegations, and in an incident after a 2007 scientific conference in Rome Thomsen "berated" a GE Healthcare sales representative for continuing to promote Omniscan at a conference stall.

At another conference later that year in Berlin, Thomsen heard claims from colleagues that concerns about gadolinium toxicity had surfaced years earlier, but had been forgotten about or ignored. He also says he had complained to no avail to GE Healthcare in 2000 that patients detected a "metallic" taste, which he believed showed gadolinium was escaping into their systems. Other critics said GE Healthcare should have carried out more long-term studies.

Matters came to a head at an Oxford conference in October 2007, when Thomsen dismayed a GE Healthcare executive in the audience by showing a presentation, and questioning whether the company had moved quickly enough in view of its lucrative financial interest.

GE Healthcare has become the third recent organisation to use the vagaries of British libel law to attempt to silence a medical science critic. Writer Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractors Association for calling techniques "bogus"; and cardiology consultant Peter Wilmshurst is being sued, once again by a US corporation. Wilmshurst criticised a heart implant device called Starflex at a medical conference in the US. But NMT Inc, the Boston manufacturers, sued him for libel in England.

British judges refuse to ban big companies, including foreign companies, from suing for libel, regardless of whether or not they have suffered genuine financial loss. The practice is banned in Australia. The British courts are also generous to "libel tourism", in which foreigners use the British courts to sue other foreigners, or for statements made abroad.

The move to sue Thomsen has been attacked by critics who say it is wrong to use libel laws to stop scientific debate. Thomsen's lawyer has taken his case on a no-win no-fee basis. But not all lawyers are willing to do this: if a libel plaintiff allows a case to "go to sleep", it can be years before defending solicitors can recover their costs.

The move by Thomsen to countersue for libel is an innovative attempt to get around some of these problems.

GE said today: "If we receive a counterclaim it will be vigorously defended." It had "conducted appropriate studies to obtain regulatory approval" and, it added, "the medical and scientific community does not fully understand how NSF occurs. A causal mechanism has not been proven."

The company had previously said: "We are defending the integrity of General Electric against comments which we believe are defamatory … this is not something we have done lightly."

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/16/scientist-libel-law-henrik-thomsen

Study found that jurors frequently used the internet to read about trials on which they were sitting, risking miscarriages of justice

Two out of three jurors do not fully understand the legal directions given to them by judges when they retire to consider their verdicts, according to a report for the Ministry of Justice which is expected to be published today.

The study into the workings of jury rooms also found jurors frequently used the internet to read about trials on which they were sitting, risking miscarriages of justice. In 2008 alone, juries in three crown court trials had to be discharged after "inappropriate use" of the internet.

The research, conducted by University College London, is based on 69,000 verdicts across 18 months, the Times reported. It suggests jurors are more likely to understand the questions they have to answer to reach a guilty verdict if they are given written instructions, and would like more guidance on how to come to a decision. But despite the ratio of jurors left confused by judges, the author of the report, Prof Cheryl Thomas, of the faculty of law at University College London, said this did not necessarily mean the jury system was not working.

There is no evidence that juries are more likely to convict a black or Asian defendant than a white one, it found. Researchers studied verdicts at Winchester and Nottingham courts, where juries are frequently made up of entirely white jurors, and concluded that race had no impact on verdicts. Rates of conviction vary substantially according to offence, with some of the most serious offences such as manslaughter having the lowest conviction rates.

Offences where police have the strongest direct evidence carry the highest conviction rates, such as making indecent photographs of a child (89%); death by dangerous driving (85%) and drug possession with intent to supply (84%).

The report also found that despite a perceived low conviction rate in rape cases, defendants are more likely to be found guilty of the offence than for some other serious charges. In the cases observed, 55% of defendants were convicted of rape, compared to 47% of attempted murder, 48% of grievous bodily harm and 48% of manslaughter.

Women in the jury were more likely to change their vote during deliberations, with two-thirds of all jurors who changed their minds female. "Female jurors appeared tougher on defendants than male jurors before jury deliberations started, but more open to persuasion to acquit in deliberations," the report said.

The rate at which juries convict defendants can vary substantially, between 53% and 69%. Teesside and Harrow crown courts have the highest conviction rates, according to the study.

Half of jurors said they were unsure what to do if something "improper," such as bullying, occurred in the jury room, while some said more information on how to conduct deliberations is needed. The report concludes that juries are operating fairly and efficiently, but says more could be done to assist them.

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/17/jurors-dont-understand-legal-advice