Originally Posted by
GANNET FAN
Yes I guess you are right, however in the present climate and under the circumstances, I suspect it may be difficult to find a completely unbiased juror.
English jurors tend to do pretty well, actually, even in this sort of case. Even if there's lots of evidence that
something was up, they are made to focus on what's important: Is there enough evidence to
prove the case against
this individual? And generally they seem to examine that question conscientiously.
The outcome of the "ricin plot" trial demonstrates this. Not only was there evidence against those who were acquitted, there was (in the judge's view) enough evidence that the jury could have properly convicted them if they had formed certain views and drawn certain inferences. But it was for the jury to form those views and draw those inferences if they thought it right. Clearly they didn't - so they acquitted.
What the lack of press coverage is intended to do is to stop potential jurors hearing things which might poison that reasoning process. For example, a story such as "This defendant has been arrested on suspicion of terrorism on six previous occasions, but was released every time because there wasn't enough evidence" would not be allowed. A juror who read that might not be able to avoid thinking that there can't be smoke without fire. So the coverage is kept to a minimum, so that the jury will only see and hear what the trial judge thinks they should properly see and hear.
There have been lots of arrests in terrorism cases since September 2001, but relatively few trials. The fact that quite a number of people have been actually charged over this suggests that the police have substantial confidence that they have a decent case to bring before the courts.