From: "Alex Holmes", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>it is not only
>the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what
is the law,
>and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is
also their
>right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the
justice of
>the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their
opinion, unjust or
>oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting
the
>execution of, such laws.
I like the sound of it! :-)
If a jury can 'nullify' a law, then it can overturn the decisions
of
Parliament. If that's so, then it means a group of 12
*un*-elected
people can overrule the will of 600-odd *elected* MPs. If I
understand
this correctly, it means that juries are supreme over Acts of
Parliament
and, hence, supreme to Parliament itself? Under common law?
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
I knew there was a historical right, in fact obligation, on a
jury to judge both fact and law but was unsure if it still
applied or whether this freedom like so many others in the UK had
been eroded.
The important thing though is that where this right and concept
of jury nullification exists it is only limited to the exercise
of the law in that one particular case, it sets no precedent nor
can it overturn a law from statute. Of course though one would
think that if every jury refuses to prosecute under any given law
then the State would presumably stop trying to enforce such a
law.
Alex Holmes
RSA
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
