What happens if a Jury disobeys a judge?

[daz3210]

Just been watching a program on TV (Silks????? on BBC1), where the judge instructed a jury that they must return a guilty verdict.

The Jury returned a not guilty verdict.

What is done in a case like this? Can a jury over-rule the judge?

[Jasandjules]

Yes. The jury can do WTF they like. If they want to acquit then they do so.

[jazzyjeff]

Er yes? That's what a jury court is for?! The judge is only there to co-ordinate proceedings and pass sentence in conjunction with the jury's decision.

[prand]

Yes but how does that work with a judges recommendation? Am I right in thinking he can send them back to have another think about it?

What bothered me the most that they released the hapless simple-minded aquitted back on the streets into the clutches of the "most violent murderous and lawless gang in London" with predictable results. After goign to all thr trouble of getting him off, then surely the pretend TV legal system could have looked after the poor big man...

[daz3210]

I assume Prand watched it too.

So what is the point of a judges 'directions'?

I know the thing on TV was just pretend, but I assume it happens in real life.

So what happens if a judge gives his directions, but a jury says against what is his 'professional' opinion?

Can a judge over-rule the jury?

Edited by daz3210 on Wednesday 16th May 00:18

[davepoth]

daz3210 said:

I assume Prand watched it too.

So what is the point of a judges 'directions'?

I know the thing on TV was just pretend, but I assume it happens in real life.

So what happens if a judge gives his directions, but a jury says against what is his 'professional' opinion?

Can a judge over-rule the jury?

Edited by daz3210 on Wednesday 16th May 00:18

The judge can overrule them if they decide the defendant is guilty and the judge thinks they should be acquitted. However the judge is not allowed to override the jury and find someone guilty.

[daz3210]

so I guess the TV prog was accurate by way of facts then?

[ferrariF50lover]

What you saw on screen cannot happen, since the Lords ruled (in R v Wang 2005) that there is never a circumstance in which a Judge may be permitted to direct a Jury to convict. It is for the Jury to decide the facts and for the Judge to give them the law to apply to the facts as they find them.

Many prominent figures have spoken on this subject, and a great many of those are quoted in the Judgement in Wang.

Simon.

[Pontoneer]

The judge can instruct the jury on points of law and how they apply to the evidence , thus :

" If you believe that A happened , you must find him guilty ; if you believe that B happened , you must find them not guilty " .

He may occasionally rule , on some point of law , that the prosecution has failed to make a case , or on some technicality , that they must return a verdict of not guilty .

I have never heard of a judge overruling a not guilty verdict .

[pitmansboots]

Prosecution had convinced the judge but had not convinced the jury. If the judge could overrule a Not-Guilty verdict from the jury why have the jury? The prosecution have to convince 12 ordinary people and the judge, otherwise just have a judge.

[daz3210]

pitmansboots said:

Prosecution had convinced the judge but had not convinced the jury. If the judge could overrule a Not-Guilty verdict from the jury why have the jury? The prosecution have to convince 12 ordinary people and the judge, otherwise just have a judge.

That was my thought, if a judge can say find him guilty, the jury is simply a puppet that does as told.

I can understand the idea of saying if you believe this.....then find guilty or not guilty (as appropriate)

[zetec]

Recently I sat on a Jury at a Coroner's court, in both cases the Coroner said that we the Jury had to, by law, return a verdict of accident. In our room we wondered that if we didn't would we be up for contempt?

[jesta1865]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

except you are innocent until proven guilty (allegedly) in this country.

[chriscpritchard]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. A Judge can require a jury to give a not guilty verdict (I think) based on a point of law, but a jury can return a "Not Guilty" verdict for any reason.

[daz3210]

zetec said:

In our room we wondered that if we didn't would we be up for contempt?

Thats basically what I was wondering, but is contempt the right word? A jury is put there to do a job

[daz3210]

chriscpritchard said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. A Judge can require a jury to give a not guilty verdict (I think) based on a point of law, but a jury can return a "Not Guilty" verdict for any reason.

Can a judge also direct a jury towards (lets say) a guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

[anonymous-user]

A Judge can direct an acquittal, when the evidence is not sufficient to support a safe conviction. A Judge cannot direct a guilty verdict. A Coroner can direct a verdict when the verdict is the only one that is sustainable on the evidence.

[Starfighter]

This does beg the question of why have a jury if the coroner can direct?
Mind you, I never understood why a jury was required for a coroner's count in the first place.

[fluffnik]

Breadvan72 said:

A Coroner can direct a verdict when the verdict is the only one that is sustainable on the evidence.

What if the jury disagree?

[3Dee]

So conversely, if an independant jury unanimously believe a defendant is 'guilty', then the Judge can overule?

Can the Judge acquit?

In that case would this not go to a retrial?