After a long fraud trial a majority direction was given. The foreman returned a verdict of guilty on count 1. He answered the question whether this was a verdict of ‘you all or by a majority’, ‘By a majority of us all.’ A disturbance at the back of the court drowned part of the foreman’s answer and no one noted that the verdict was other than unanimous. The defendant argued that the majority verdict provisions in section 17(3) had not been complied with. The Crown argued that the foreman was to be understood as saying that the jury were unanimous.
Held: The foreman’s answer was ambiguous and that ambiguity had to be resolved in favour of the defendant.
Citations:
[1992] Crim LR 313
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.192259