Like most Daily Mail/Express headlines the truth is somewhat less sensational. In fact a paragraph further down in the article reassuringly states:
"If a juror attends court and there is a doubt about their capacity to act effectively due to insufficient understanding of English, the matter will be brought to the attention of the trial judge who could excuse them. In more complex cases, such as fraud cases, where jurors may be expected to read documents as part of the evidence, an assessment of whether the juror can serve on that trial will be made at court with judicial input".
I have served on a jury and it reaffirmed my faith in the justice system and the effectivenes of being tried by ones peers. One juror, an Englishman, was taken off a case as he was unable to read the oath and there was a question as to whether he could understand the complexities of what could be a 6 week long trial over drug smuggling which would involve very complex financial detail. I was mightily relieved (NOT a cue for you, Vic!
) that I was excused too as I couldn't spare 6 weeks. At all times, however, it felt that the drive was for impartiality and justice and I left with far more confidence in the system having had the slightest insight.
These trivial newspapers that twist stories for their own anti-immigration agenda should be made accountable for their inflammatory tosh.
