From the BBC article:

Five months into the trial, Mr Justice Mackay ordered the jury to find the men not guilty.

"It is not open to you to convict any of the six defendants on charges of manslaughter," he told the jury on Thursday morning.

He was not permitted to give reasons for his decision, he said.

-------

Any of you legals able to shed light on the significance of this last sentence?

I have just seen the BBC online report. The judge says he instructs the jury with regard to the manslaughter charge.

I don't understand this. How can a judge tell the jury what to do?

It smacks to me of the establishment looking after big business, ie 'it would be wrong to send business leaders to jail'. It wouldn't be the first time but I wonder if sending five business men to jail is not what the judge wants to be associated with.

is this enough evidence ...no

but looking at the track record

i have some questions to ask these corporate fascists

thanks for posting

and sorry i have been a rude asshole

"I have just seen the BBC online report. The judge says he instructs the jury with regard to the manslaughter charge.

I don't understand this. How can a judge tell the jury what to do?"

It is the judge's job to advise the jury on points of law, summarise the key issues in an impartial manner, and so on. Thus you will sometimes see pieces in the press where the judge (or Sherrif, in Scotland) instructs the jury to admonish someone as (say) there is insufficient evidence. Or he will ask the jury to set aside emotional issues on difficult cases (child murders, rape, etc) and concentrate on key facts. There's nothing sinister at all.


"It smacks to me of the establishment looking after big business, ie 'it would be wrong to send business leaders to jail'. It wouldn't be the first time but I wonder if sending five business men to jail is not what the judge wants to be associated with. "

I'm afraid you're wide of the mark here. The Health and Safety Executive is notoriously happy to prosecute wrongdoers - architects, contractors, engineers, whoever. Safety legislation is notoriously draconian, as it should be when people's lives are at risk. The problem is that corporate manslaughter charges are very hard to prove - where there is an extensive line management structure, how do you prove that senior management knowlingly made decisions which had serious safety implications. Remember this is criminal, not civil, matter so guilt has to be shown beyon reasonable doubt.

I'd brush up on the legal system before drawing such wide-reaching conclusions. And no, the legal system isn't fiddled on purpose, just for these characters.

And look - Balfour Beatty have admitted it! So much for the original correspondent's suggestion of conspiracy!


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4692813.stm