The judge has dismissed the jury in the Woodgate/Bowyer trial. What does this mean? Does the trial start again or is this the English version of Not Proven? Could the legal minds out there clarify for me please.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Answers

Discharged apparently for reading the Sunday Mirror. Now doubts over whether there can ever be a "fair trial" due to the previous publicity. What a bloody farce. According to my Auntie:

The jury in the case of two Leeds United footballers accused of attacking a student has been discharged following the publication of a "prejudicial" newspaper article.

Lee Bowyer, 24, and Jonathan Woodgate, 21, and friends, Neale Caveney, 21, and Paul Clifford, 21, were accused of causing grievous bodily harm to 20-year-old Sarfraz Najeib near a Leeds nightclub in January last year.

The judge discharged the jury on the 38th day of the trial after members of the jury said they had read the article in the Sunday Mirror.

The paper ran an interview with the student's father Muhammad Najeib.

After half a day of legal arguments the judge told the jury the "highly emotive" article left him no choice but to abort the trial.

Mr Justice Poole said although it was "frustrating" he could not ignore the article.

"Whatever the intentions behind that publication the effect for now is that all of that effort has been derailed," he said.

Retrial decision

A decision will now have to be made whether to order a retrial or dismiss the case entirely.

Mr Justice Poole told the jury: "I am in no doubt that with the passage of time proceedings could be resumed."

But the decision will have to be made by the Crown Prosecution Service on whether there is any chance of a fair trial for the four men.

An application for a retrial will be made at 0945BST on Tuesday.

Mr Najeib, 20, of Rotherham, South Yorkshire, suffered serious injuries including a broken leg and fractured cheekbone when he was attacked by a group of men near the Majestyk nightclub in January last year.

He was also bitten on the cheek during the attack and was in hospital for eight days.

On Thursday Leeds United defender Michael Duberry, 25, of Leeds, Mr Woodgate, Mr Clifford and Mr Caveney were all cleared of charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice after the attack.

The trial was in its ninth week with the court hearing evidence from more than 60 witnesses.

The jury had already deliberated for three days.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

I presume the defence will now claim that there is no possibility of a fair re-trial, given the high profile media attention?

Why, so near to the end of the trial, were the jury given the possibility of reading Sunday newspapers?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Judges fault for sending them home....

British justice is such a farce.....

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Just heard that the prosecution has applied for a re-trial. Don`t know if that means they will get one though. Sniff.....sniff.....can anybody smell something funny around here? (:o|

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

I was absolutely astonished when I read the Sunday Mirror yesterday. It's hard to think of a worse contempt of court. As soon as the paper hit the streets, today's outcome was inevitable. Incredible.

Sunday Mirror lawyers appear to be making noises about the articles not being contempt - we've got more hope of winning next season's Champions' League. Whoever made the decision to run the stories should be sacked on the spot - and the paper fined several million pounds. But the damage has been done.

I'd say a re-trial was likely, but wouldn't bank on it.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Whether the jury should have been allowed out for the w/e is debatable. But not so debatable as the absolutely totally irresponsible act by the SM. They should be hauled over the coals for this. What a total waste of money the whole trial has been and it looks likely that the case may be dropped.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Are there seperate Criminal and civil suits in England? This article may have ruined any chance of a criminal trial, but could the victim try to at least get monetary compensation from a civil suit? His lawyers should certainly be looking at taking the Mirror to court. could that paper really not have waited another week or so until the jury had made a decision? :-|

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

So Dr Bill's fears the trial might be abandoned due to media intrusion proved well founded. The Sunday Mirror should be hit as hard as it legally can, and harder imho. Someone was nearly killed and stupid irresponsible gutter journalism may have stopped those accused even receiving a trial. That this is so very British depresses me even more.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

As always, there were / are dozens and dozens of "background" stories ready to run on this case. Everyone knows the legal position - you don't publish anything until the last verdicts have been brought in by the jury.

It's a golden rule even the youngest cub reporter would know - on pain of death - and it was re-inforced (not that it should have been needed) in media memos after Duberry was cleared. Absolutely nothing - apart from the public proceedings with jury present - should be published until the end of the whole trial.

Which is why yesterday's incredible decision by the Sunday Mirror is so difficult to understand. There isn't an editor in the land who would support it. So why on earth did they do it? They've halted a trial which has cost some £8 million and many, many weeks of time and effort...and possibly halted the quest for justice.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Only in Britain:-

i) could a newspaper take such utterly irresponsible action
ii) could we send a Jury home "for the weekend" after such a lengthy, costly and high profile trial.
What's so god-damned special about one Saturday and one Sunday that we slap happily put justice at risk in prepference to getting on with the job and getting it sorted? Get real! Can't we get anything right in this country any more?

If these people were to walk away scott- free as a result of this fiasco it will be a national disgrace. Let's just hope it doesn't happen.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Dare I suggest that they were taken back by the NotW's "Sophiegate" story and had to have something equally "interesting" to publish?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Interesting, and probably accurate explanation, Screach. Just shows how seriously they take their responsibilities.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

...the Sunday Mirror was also full of the Sophiegate stuff - nicked from the NotW. It will be very interesting to hear what the newspaper's explanation is. There's no way this sort of article could/should have slipped in by mistake...which just leaves a gross error of judgement. Someone won't be sleeping much tonight.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Hi Stevo, how're you doing?

This stuff happens all the time: it really hacks me off. Funnily enough, one of the cases I sort of mentioned in passing that I was involved with was also in the papers on Sunday - ST to be precise. I really can't comment any more on that, but if you find it, you'll realise exactly why I get so hot under the collar about this when it happens. It's probably worse than the Leeds case.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Word tonight is that the Crown Prosecution Service are to press for a re-trial later this year at a hearing scheduled for tomorrow before the trial Judge.
The defense attorneys are expected to object to a further trial on the basis that it will not be possible to find a jury who are untainted by the publicity the trial has attracted, particularly over the weekend.

Reports suggest Management at the Sunday Mirror could find themselves in serious legal trouble for their part in the breakdown of the trial - IMO they should throw away the key.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

I struggle with the "fair trial" bit.

The judge had told the jury to ignore any suggestion of racism. So they know to ignore things. He is allowed to tell them to beware of witnesses who may have mistakingly identified people. Why can't he just say ignore anything you read in the paper. Does he trust them to listen to him last week, but not this ??

Got to say I feel for Duberry now. He goes out and changes his story against what I guess would be severe peer pressure and now he's left to face the wrath of his former mates in training, or has to leave.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

I agree Clarky - the SM management should be hung out to dry. Just WTF did they think they were playing at?

However, it should still be possible to find 12 honest people who have not been influenced by the previous proceedings. Wasn't there a judge recently who admitted not knowing who Gazza was? And I've been out of the country for 4 weeks and not been able to keep in touch. There must be 10 more somewhere.

Ref your earlier posting. This really does say something about the "best justice system in the world" (who says) and the contempt to which the press hold the country. I really do hope they make a huge example of the SM. This really pisses me off. Not (just) because it is Woodgate et al involved. The whole mess stinks. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some hidden agenda behind it all. Put's slagging of dogs and Mary Poppins into perspective, eh?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Being stuck here in the Antipodes I have not read the said article.

Those people with a penchant for wagers, who is starting a book for a) Leeds paying the father or b) Leeds paying the said newspaper?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

I've no idea how much there is in it, but I heard earlier this evening that the SM Editor could well be in league with the LUFC management and that they were made aware that it was going to be guilty and that they were going down, and this way has protected them.

Lets face it the chances of them getting a second fair trial is highly unlikely, so the chances are, guilty or not, it is going to be seen as if they are getting away with it.

Personally, and I've said it on this board on more than one occassion but I have been uncomfortable with this trial right from the start and the fact that, lets face it, what was little more than a Saturday night punch up over someone alledgedly nicking someone else's bird, has been promoted to such a high profile issue simply because they are professional footballers.

Yes, they are probably guilty of giving the poor lad a hell of a beating, and yes they probably went completely over the top in doing so, but at the same time, like most other people on this board, I've seen the same kind of thing and worse in the Bigg Market, in Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow and in places like Brixton, Toxteth and in most other major cities in the country over the years, but you don't see them mentioned on every national news bulletin and printed in every newspaper do you.

The other theory around is now that this has happened, LUFC are going to off-load them to mainland Europe during the summer, and thus they may avoid any retrial.......anyone know what the legals of that are. If they are 'plying ther trade' overseas, could they still be tried, and would the British Government want the balyhoo that would accompany any deportation request?

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2001

Sending them abroad would make no difference - unless they did a Ronnie Biggs, which is a tad unlikely. They'd still have to face a re- trial, which - looking at the coverage today (Tue) - still seems to be the most likely outcome. There would be a poss gap of some six months to allow all the publicity to die down. And there are precedents re other high profile cases which have collapsed and then gone on to re-trial.

And the father - who gave the "background" interview in good faith on the understanding that it would, of course, NOT be used until after the trial - is also claiming he was misquoted in the Sunday Mirror. The Sun describes publication by the Sunday Mirror as so astonishing it took their breath away. And while The Sun has a separate agenda on this, I think they've got it about right.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Scuse me , I'm not up on ther news... What was it that the Sunday Mirror published that could sway the decision of the jury?

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Latest news report (11.10am):

Leeds United soccer stars Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer will face a retrial over an alleged attack on an Asian student, a judge ruled today. England international Woodgate and former England under-21 captain Bowyer will face a hearing at Hull on October 8, Mr Justice Poole said. Two of Woodgate's friends Paul Clifford and Neale Caveney, who was the only defendant in court today, will also face a retrial, Hull Crown Court heard.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Staying in the cynical vein, we surely get the sort of journalism we deserve.

If the country wasn't populated by an overabundance of pathetic sad bastards who need to soak up the kind of crap the SM etc regurgitate, this kind of travesty wouldn't occur.

Demand and supply. No demand, the supply wastes away.

As far as this case goes, it's just like any other. It all boils down to who tells the best story within the rules, so I can't see that members of a jury becoming aware of a version external to the versions being put forward in court, should have enough influence on the jury to result in the case being abandoned.

Or am I expecting far too much common sense from an English jury and the British legal system ?

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Rik....I take it that your question was a genuine one......

Bottom line was, the judge had outlined to the jury in his summing up that it had been clearly proven (and accepted by the prosection and defence) some weeks ago in the early stages of the trial that this was NOT a racially motivated attack.

The piece that the SM printed from an interview with the guys father clearly stated that in his view it was racially motivated......ergo, as the jury hadn't returned a verdict, this was in contempt of court and prejudiced the outcome of the trial as several of the jury members stated that they had either read, or were aware of the article.

Of course, his fathers views would not have been a problem as reported had the verdict been returned.....it would have then been up to Woodgate and Bowyer to deal with that if they felt the need to do so, but in the 'middle' of the trial, no way.....thus £8m down the drain.

Now does that put me in the same bracket as the SM......god I hope not!

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Can someone explain to me where the figure of eight million pounds comes from? I see similar cases every other week in our local paper......I can`t believe that they cost £8,000,000 to take through the courts. (:o|

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Just surmising Gal, but the gang of legal eagles that Leeds have likely thrown at the problem, have eaten up most of the 8 mill, hoping they'll win by just swamping the opposition - the 'How the eff are we going to keep up with that lot ?' approach.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Pit Bill......so does that mean that the public have to foot the bill for their defence lawyers? You can tell I`ve lead a very law abiding life can`t you! (;o)

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

I would imagine in this case, if the contempt charge sticks, it could - and should - be the SM that pays. That most definitely would give me absolutely no cause for concern.

Failing that, I reckon we probably will have to carry the can.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

I object yer Honour! (;o)

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Altogether now:
You can wipe the Sunday Mirror on yer @rse
You can wipe the Sunday Mirror on yer @rse
You can wipe the Sunday Mirror
Wipe the Sunday Mirror
Wipe the Sunday Mirror on yer @rse

Ooh - I feel better for that.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

I wonder how much the lads dad got paid for that article....I'm as pissed off as everyone else that this farce of a trial was halted but I can't help but think it's ironic that the victims justice has been halted at least in part because members of his family were greedily cashing in....

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Galaxy,
Objections will be over-ruled as a matter of course. In any case, how dare you object ? - it's absolutely none of your business.

Just cos you're a fair minded, fully paid up member of the proletocracy gives you no right whatever to ideas way above your station.

Just put up and shut up. You'll get a chance to think you're having a say in June or whenever, F and M allowing. Okay ?

Let's have no more of these disgraceful mutterings. What is the world coming to ? Next, you'll be expecting to have a say, and have some notice taken of it. Such arrogance.

I didn't concienciously object to two world wars and one world cup in the interests of this kind of attitude.

So there. :-)))

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Gav,

The family got 20K from the Mirror who weren't given the exclusive rights so, presumably, there's a lot more where that came from. Pretty sickening really isn't it?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

It seems to me that LUFC's part in the perversion of the course of justice should be thoroughly investigated - including their collusion in Michael Duberry's perjery.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Pit Bill - it`s enough to make you join the Green party!(;o)

Gav - I so agree with you about the irony. I wonder if that lad`s Dad had even the slightest clue that this could happen?(:o|

What a world we live in eh?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

So Colin Myler, the SM editor has "resigned". He was wrong, tho in mitigation he'll say he took legal advice on the matter. But to my mind, the bigger culprit is the Sunday Mirror itself. Some of these bliddy newspapers believe they are above the law. Let's hope not this time. The SM should pay - big time. And Myler should not be allowed to take such a high position for many years. They loused it up big time.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Myler and the SM should be both prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. Resigning does not reset the calendar, and should not be allowed to mitigate the crime committed by both him and the SM.

In any event, Myler's resignation will be nothing more than a carefully crafted diversionary measure put together by the SM's legal advisors.
Whatever legal advice he did or didn't take on whether to publish the article is totally immaterial. He took the decision; he should stand by his actions, and be judged accordingly.
The SM are also culpable in not having adequate management controls in place to prevent such a fiasco occurring.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear CLarky. Both shold be prosecuted, but IMHO the law should could down big time on the SM. Myler made a huge mistake (probably trying to please his bosses) and he should be accountable for that action. No doubt he reaped big rewards when he worked for them. You can't do that without taking the downside when it goes pear-shaped. Equally, without doubt, he'll have been "looked after" now that he has resigned.

But will it happen?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Let's put it this way Screacher - has anyone at Railtrack been prosecuted for their 'contributory nelgigence' in several fatal accidents? IMO, Corbett's 'resignation' here was yet another stage- managed diversionary tactic that may well succeed.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001