The court indicated how a jury might be directed in the event of an apparent deadlock, given two public interests which tend to pull in opposite directions: (i) the imperative that a jury should be put under no pressure; and (ii) the desirability of avoiding the delay, expense and uncertainty which is bound to arise if there has to be a second trial after a jury disagreement.
Held: ‘In the judgment of this Court there is no reason why a jury should not be directed as follows: ‘Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence. No one must be false to that oath, but you have a duty not only as individuals but collectively. That is the strength of the jury system. Each of you takes into the jury box with you your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of the others. There must necessarily be discussion, argument and give and take within the scope of your oath. That is the way in which agreement is reached. If, unhappily [10 of] you cannot reach agreement you must say so.’ It is a matter for the discretion of the judge as to whether he gives that direction t all and if so at what stage of the trial. There will usually be no need to do so. Individual variations which alter the sense of the direction, as can be seen from the particular appeals which we have heard, are often dangerous and should, if possible be avoided. Where the words are thought to be necessary or desirable, they are probably best included as part of the summing up or given or repeated after the jury have had time to consider the majority direction —
Citations:
[1988] 87 Cr App R 1, [1988] QB 690
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Confirmed – Regina v Buono CACD 1992
. .
Cited – Regina v Tarlock Singh (Deceased) CACD 4-Jun-1998
A departure from a Watson direction will not necessarily make a jury verdict unsafe. . .
Cited – Regina v Morgan CACD 26-Mar-1997
A failure to five a jury warning in the precise form suggested in Watson need not make the trial unfair. . .
Cited – Morrison v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police CA 17-Feb-2003
The claimant sought damages from the police for the manner of her arrest. At the civil trial, the jury had been undecided, and the court directed the jury as to resolution. The respondents appealed saying that the judge had put too much pressure on . .
Cited – Regina v Durrant CACD 6-Mar-1998
The foreman of the jury effectively indicated that there was no reasonable prospect of the jury reaching an agreed verdict, but the judge interrupted saying that he would ask them to retire again for a while and read out verbatim the Watson . .
Cited – Regina v Pinches CACD 22-Jun-2010
Whether use of Watson direction was appropriate. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.184709
