Nuclear owners accused over leaks (UK)

[jpak]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7813543.stm

Operators of a nuclear power station in Essex have been accused of allowing radioactive waste to seep into the ground for 14 years.

The Environment Agency claims waste leaked from a unit at Bradwell power station, now decommissioned, between 1990 and 2004.

Mark Harris, prosecuting, said leaks were caused by poor design, too few checks and a lack of maintenance.

Magnox Electric Ltd denies 11 breaches of radioactive waste disposal laws.

<more>

[madokie]

1. Why would the judge say this?

Judge Peter Fenn warned jurors not to carry out private research.

"Resist the temptation to go down to your local library or on to the internet to conduct research into nuclear physics or nuclear power stations," he said.

[phantom power]

2. Rules for jurors. The idea is to avoid biasing the jury...

the same reason jurors are supposed to avoid reading newspapers, watching TV news, etc.

[madokie]

3. Fair enough

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Which has always struck me as asinine

I was once on a jury for a DWI case. The defendant was pulled over in a specific location, and failed a field sobriety test (he later failed a breathalyzer test.) The arresting officer testified that the shoulder was level in that spot, the defense claimed that it was inclined.

The Judge instructed us to forget any personal knowledge we had of the terrain in that location. (A location I'm certain we all knew well.)

Personally, I think a well informed jurist is about as valuable as any other well informed voter.

[phantom power]

5. Having served on a couple juries...

I've also given some thought to that problem. I don't really know what the answer is. I agree with you that an "informed jury" is an ideal goal. But you immediately run into a problem: one person's "information" is another person's "unfactual bias."

Both the prosecution and defense can educate the jury with expert witness. That obviously introduces bias, but it is testimony that can at least be preserved for public record, in case the trial is ever called into question. If you allow jury members to introduce their own research, you lose quality control, and also accountability.

I guess I've come to see it as a least-bad solution to a difficult problem.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. In my experience

The legal system seeks to eliminate any jury members with relevant knowledge. So, for example, when Bernie Madoff is eventually tried, I expect there won't be any financial experts allowed.

When there are complex matters involved, it seems to me that individuals who understand those matters are helpful. (So, maybe someone with some experience in the nuclear field would be good.)

Doesn't a Judge do research in a non-jury case? Is the Judge's decision unfairly biased as a result?