The male juror, who cannot be named by British media for legal reasons, was selected to serve on the jury in the case of a man who was on trial at Southampton Crown Court for assault and dangerous driving. Wanting to be honest, he wrote a letter to the court outlining his limitations. Presiding Judge Gary Burrell QC (Queen's Counsel) read the letter out in open court; here is the critical excerpt:
“I strongly believe that it would be a serious injustice to the legal system to select me for jury service. I hold extreme prejudices against homosexuals and black/foreign people and couldn’t possibly be impartial if either appeared in court. Therefore it would not be in the court’s interest to have me a juror.”
The letter went on to say that in his eagerness to bring any case to a swift conclusion, he would simply vote with the majority and not give his true opinion. Note that he did not say he was refusing to serve.
Prosecuting and defence barristers Rebecca Austin and Robert Bryan immediately lodged a challenge to him as a juror. When questioned by Judge Burrell about whether these were his true beliefs, the juror confirmed they were and added that he didn’t think he had the right to judge anyone. Although Judge Burrell admitted he could not discern whether those were the man's true beliefs or if it was a ploy to get excused from jury service, he had not choice but to dismiss him from the jury.
However, that may not be the end of it. As the juror was leaving the courtroom, he was warned he now faced prosecution under the Contempt of Court Act for failing to serve on a jury as Judge Burrell would be writing to the Attorney General about the case. How the Crown could possibly prove such a charge is mystifying, since the juror never said he wouldn't serve. But the Crown could use this as an excuse for prosecuting him for his politics. It's almost illegal for a White man to be a racist in the United Kingdom, even privately.
The British Resistance, an openly pro-White blog, had some sharp criticism for Judge Burrell. Not only do they intend to add him to their JudgeWatch list, but reminded us that the judge is the same race traitor and moron who sentenced a young white man to three years imprisonment for sending a joke text to his friend when the enrichers in Birmingham, Manchester, Derby, London and Liverpool were burning and looting those former British Cities.
The story has triggered some discussion on Stormfront. The juror gets considerable support in the Yahoo News comments, although some think his final statement when he declared he would merely vote with the majority may have got him into trouble:
polly 5 hrs ago:
I think the attorneys don't have a case. He did not "refuse to serve". He merely gave his reasons why it would be a bad idea. The judge agreed, and dismissed him.
Sam 5 hrs ago:
How can he be tried for not serving when the court dismissed him? He merely suggested that he would be a poor choice as a juror, but he was there and ready to serve if not dismissed.
Grizzled1Two 4 hrs ago:
Then what's the point of even asking a potential juror if they can be impartial during the trial and base their decisions on testimony during the hearing? So now, your going to have folks afraid to say something, get on the jury and possibly taint the jury pool so much that an innocent person is imprisoned. Doesn't make sense.
ILOVEEARTH 1 hr 22 mins ago:
the problem is the last statement he made, "I wont pay attention and just vote with the majority" that is were they have him. b/c even with his homophobia and racist views he could have been selected on a case with a white straight male, but he is saying even then he wont do his civic duty correct. this is where he messed up. pretty obvious he is just avoiding jury duty.