In September 2003 Jonathan Black’s client M was arrested by border police for an offence of arriving in the UK without the correct entry clearance. A few days previously he, along with his wife and 10 year old step son were amongst 71 passengers who left the Calais jungle on a “small boat “ after smugglers had threatened his wife with sexual violence. A year previously M had escaped the Iran where as an anti regime dissident his life was at risk. He met his wife and her son online as they were both seeking refuge. She had travelled across Europe to be with him.
He was charged and initially detained in custody accused of arriving without entry clearance contrary to S24D (1) of The Immigration Act 1971. This is an offence which can be tried by Magistrates or a Jury. This defendant chose to be tried by a jury .
Why did he choose Jury trial ?
Because he had an important story to tell, a story that needed to be heard by his peers in the jurisdiction that he had applied for asylum in. His decision meant that he had to wait longer for his trial, and then when it could not be heard in spring 2024 that wait was extended . It was a difficult wait because during this period his movements were restricted by a curfew and an electronic tag. This was not easy when living in a hotel with a wife and ten year old. Of course if he did not ask for a jury trial his case could have been heard within a shorter time frame but perhaps not with the same outcome.
What did the Jury consider ?
Laura Stockdale of Doughty street Chambers, told the jury that the beauty of our system is that it relies on an understanding of human experience. Whilst the 12 members of the jury are unlikely to have escaped to the UK by small boat under duress, they were urged to consider how they would have acted had they had family members being held captive and abused in the Calais jungle, unable to escape into France with the only option of escaping the living hell was for a family member to pay the smuggling gang to put their lives in their hands by boarding a flimsy dinghy at gunpoint with 68 other people. The jury listened attentively to what Ms Stockdale described as “a love story, but also a terrible love story”. In less than three hours they unanimously agreed that M may have entered the country unlawfully but did so when there were no alternative options given the perilous position that he and his family were in.
Whilst backlogs and delays are frustrating, the prosecution were invited prior to trail to reconsider whether it was in the public interest to pursue the case. The alterative for our client was to wait for court space. It was in this case worth the wait. There is nothing that can replace trial by peers, it’s peerless.