Juror jailed for Christmas

[Dedworth]

This morons stupidity made me laugh

A juror who claimed he was ill during a court case so he could go watch a West End musical with his mother will spend Christmas behind bars.

Matthew Banks, 19, went to see a production of Chicago in London when he should have been in a Manchester court for the fifth day of a trial.

But before the curtain went up on the show, court officials discovered his deception and sent police looking for him.

The Manchester University language student has now been sent to Forest Bank Young Offenders' Institution for 14 days after admitting contempt of court.

Banks looked stunned as he was led away to start his sentence.

Judge Martin Rudland said Banks' offence was too serious for a suspended jail term because of the frivolous reason for his absence and the lies he told to try and manipulate Manchester Crown Court.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1hAjTl6qC

[subseastu]

Good to see a judge banging folk away for the really serious cases, just need them to start on the murderers and rapists etc.

[grahamw48]

Good to see a judge banging folk away for the really serious cases, just need them to start on the murderers and rapists etc.

Absolutely.

Evidently there's more concern about protocol than about proper punishment of crooks.

The idiot WILL learn his lesson though, one that should have been taught by his parents.

[Arthur Little]

Good to see a judge banging folk away for the really serious cases, just need them to start on the murderers and rapists etc.

Absolutely.

Evidently there's more concern about protocol than about proper punishment of crooks.

s, gents ... he'd have been treated with more leniency for bashing some over the head - relieving her of handbag and purse - might THEN have received a 'suspend(er)ed sentence'!

[Dedworth]

Good to see a judge banging folk away for the really serious cases, just need them to start on the murderers and rapists etc.

I agree the jail sentences need to be a lot longer for the lot of them including this fool who showed total disrespect for the judicial system and cost untold taxpayers money what with the Police interviewing his "boyfriend" then arresting and charging the scrote himself.

He will enjoy himself in the slammer - no worries about dropping the soap in the shower

[Arthur Little]

How IRRESPONSIBLE ... now he's "facing the music"!

[Arthur Little]

... now he's "facing the music"!

... "food for thought" while he's tucking into his festive fare!

[stevewool]

How IRRESPONSIBLE ... now he's "facing the music"!

and i bet hes dancing around his cell too

[RickyR]

Whilst I think its right he's punished for his actions, it does seem ridiculous how so many more severe convictions are given much lesser penalties.

[grahamw48]

I agree, he deserved to be punished.

Teach him some damned respect.

[johncar54]

As the jury system does not really work, it ought to be abolished.

[joebloggs]

As the jury system does not really work, it ought to be abolished.

what alternatives are there ? a judge decide?

[johncar54]

If a jury convict and there is an appeal then three judges try the case.

I believe that when everything is taken into account (having to explain the law, by the defense, prosecution and the Judge, both sides playing to the gallery, the judge's summing up etc ) a three judge trial would be cheaper. There is no doubt that justice too would be more likely to be achieved. Juries very often make up their minds for reasons not supported by the evidence, both when convicting and acquitting.

Although jurors were prevented by law from ever discussing what went on the jury room, in 30 years heard a lot of first hand accounts of what really happened, thus, I believe I am in a reasonably good position to make a judgment based on fact rather than on just a gut feeling, which is the best that most can ever do, including barristers.

[joebloggs]

If a jury convict and there is an appeal then three judges try the case.

I believe that when everything is taken into account (having to explain the law, by the defense, prosecution and the Judge, both sides playing to the gallery, the judge's summing up etc ) a three judge trial would be cheaper. There is no doubt that justice too would be more likely to be achieved. Juries very often make up their minds for reasons not supported by the evidence, both when convicting and acquitting.

Although jurors were prevented by law from ever discussing what went on the jury room, in 30 years heard t a lot of first hand accounts of what really happened, thus, I believe I am in a reasonably good position to make a judgment based on fact rather than on just a gut feeling, which is the best that most can ever do, including barristers.

how many of these judges who get paid £120k+ a year live in the 'real world' that most of us do

i've appeared as a witness in 3 trails, 2 of the judges i thought were pretty pathetic and weak.

[grahamw48]

I wonder how many were wearing ladies' underwear ?

[Terpe]

Maybe having professional jurors is a good alternative.

[Englishman2010]

Maybe having professional jurors is a good alternative.

I agree.
I had to attend an Employment Tribunal as a witness several years ago. The panel was made up of 3 people - The Chairman was a Judge and his two co-panelists weren't legally qualified but they were regulars on Tribunal Panels and had a good understanding of the subject matter.

[Dedworth]

Unfortunately he won't be locked up over Christmas they've let him out - pathetic

I've got an awful feeling there's some Human Rights angle to this - 7 days half his sentence is up on Boxing Day and for some reason they couldn't release him then, so no doubt can't release him on Christmas Day or a Saturday so the to$$er gets out today