Juror Swears Oath on Cup of River Water
As we've discussed before, some people consider certain rivers to be holy, and at least three of the world's rivers have been declared persons" for certain legal purposes. See Two More Rivers Declared Persons" (Mar. 23, 2017). But this may, as the BBC's headline suggests, be the first time a juror has sworn a legal oath on some river water.
The headline is actually Juror swears oath on river in legal first," and at first I thought this meant he was just on a boat at the time. But eventually the BBC got around to explaining that the juror had chosen to swear his oath on a cup of river water instead of on a holy book, as is more often the case.
If you've been sitting around wondering who will probably be the first juror to swear an oath on a cup of river water" then (1) you need to get out more and (2) you don't know Paul Powlesland. According to the BBC, Powlesland is a 38-year-old lawyer and activist who lives on a boat on the Roding, a tributary of the Thames. He is a co-founder of Lawyers for Nature, described as a group that advocates for legal representation for elements of the natural world," and founder of the River Roding Trust, a charity that works to clean and preserve his habitat.
I don't know how bad things are on or in the Roding, but according to the trust's website, to date it has removed 1270 bags of rubbish and 75 trolleys and large items" from the river. Trolleys" probably means what we would call shopping carts," not streetcars," or at least I hope that's what they mean. Either way, this has certainly been an improvement.
So with that background, it's not too surprising that Powlesland brought the river to court with him when he was called for jury duty. But it was a bit unusual, which earned him a quizzical" look from the bailiff, who asked him to do a sip test to ensure it was not a toxic substance." (It apparently wasn't, which seems like a good sign for the Roding.) Powlesland didn't quite claim he believes the river is holy, but argued that his devotion to it is like a religion. I told him the river was effectively my god, and that I hold the river to be sacred," Powlesland said. The judge called him in" (to chambers, presumably) to have a chat about this, but ultimately let him do what he wanted.
The great thing about all this nonsense is that none of it was really necessary. (A sentence that, it now strikes me, applies to this whole project and I might have it put on my tombstone). In the UK, and all the countries on which it bestowed/forced its legal system for that matter, oaths don't need to have a religious component of any kind. Secular oaths are often called affirmations" to emphasize the difference, but the legal effect is the same.
It takes the Oaths Act 1978 a while to get around to saying this, but that's what it says. The first paragraph of the act is showing its age a bit by referring to specific religions at all:
The person taking the oath shall hold the New Testament, or, in the case of a Jew, the Old Testament, in his uplifted hand, and shall say or repeat after the officer administering the oath the words I swear by Almighty God that ....', followed by the words of the oath prescribed by law.... In the case of a person who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, the oath shall be administered in any lawful manner.
That is, if a Muslim wanted to use the Koran or a Hindu wanted to use ... an equivalent text if any that I apologize for not looking up, that would be a perfectly acceptable oath.
Or, maybe you don't want to use a book at all, which apparently has long been the case in Scotland because there's a specific provision for it:
If any person to whom an oath is administered desires to swear with uplifted hand, in the form and manner in which an oath is usually administered in Scotland, he shall be permitted so to do, and the oath shall be administered to him in such form and manner without further question.
So the use of a book doesn't matter, which is also nice because it avoids the problem of having to decide, for example, which New or Old Testament is the right" one to use. See, e.g., Louisiana Debates Which Holy Bible to Make Official State Book" (Apr. 7, 2014) (explaining that of course it didn't make any difference because either way the bill was obviously unconstitutional).
But the book or hand or whatever doesn't have to be holy," either, because the law also provides for non-religious affirmations" that are almost exactly the same:
Any person who objects to being sworn shall be permitted to make his solemn affirmation instead of taking an oath.... A solemn affirmation shall be of the same force and effect as an oath.... Subject to subsection (2) below, every affirmation shall be as follows:-'I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm,' and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness."
And the law also makes clear that an oath taken on whatever the person wants to use for that purpose, or on no object at all, is binding whether the person has any religious belief in it or not:
Validity of oaths.
(1) In any case in which an oath may lawfully be and has been administered to any person, if it has been administered in a form and manner other than that prescribed by law, he is bound by it if it has been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as he may have declared to be binding.
(2) Where an oath has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom it was administered had, at the time of taking it, no religious belief, shall not for any purpose affect the validity of the oath.
Like I said, the Oaths Act 1978 could have said all this much more briefly. But the point is that if a guy wants to swear an oath on some river water-even just for publicity purposes-he can do that and it's binding. According to Powlesland, what he actually said was I swear by the river Roding, from her source in Molehill Green to her confluence with the Thames, that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence." See Paul Powlesland, My local river is so dear to me that I swore my juror oath on it," The Telegraph (Aug. 1, 2024). I guess I swear by" makes it an oath," and the rest of it seems close enough (the Molehill Green clause really wasn't necessary but whatever). The judge apparently also had Powlesland do an affirmation" just to be sure, which was probably a good idea.
After the verdict was delivered last Friday, the judge thanked the jurors for their service. You tried this case faithfully according to the evidence," he told them, as you took an oath to do, whether on a river or otherwise."
So it doesn't matter whether you take an oath" or affirmation," at least most of the time. If you are the one on trial, though, you might want to choose the former. A study published in 2023 found that although in general the choice didn't make a difference, jurors who themselves chose to take a religious oath were just a little more likely to convict a defendant who didn't. Swearing on a river probably isn't a great idea in that situation, either. Legally valid, but tactically questionable.
Related Stories