Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Trial of Ryan Giggs - Jury out place your bets

NG OR G

I was a tad out on the length of the jury retirement surprise

But I'll take a discharged jury as effectively NG,  as there's no way the CPS will have the balls/stomach to seek a re-trial, in view of the appalling way Ms Greville came across in evidence.

Walsh, Juries will be hung if they cannot agree as a majority: 10-2 or 11-1 (ratios are less if you don't have 12 jurors).  If they are torn 9-3 or otherwise they are hung.  The Court, if it ever receives a "numbers note" will not be able to disclose this to counsel and no one in the trial will know how "hung" they were.

It is not at all unusual to have a retrial after one hung jury.  Lots of factors taken into the mix such as willingness of witnesses, public interest considerations, evidential strengths etc.  Most retrials i have had in a single case were 4 but that was in very unusual circumstances which i won't go into.  

It can be a nightmare to run a retrial especially if you have got all the way to the end.  There is no "element of surprise" in respect of cross examination by either side and it can be a little stale.  It will be interesting to see what happens here but I would not be surprised if the Crown want a bit of time to consider and come back.  In cases where i think there might be a hung jury i try to get a decision on whether we go again before verdicts so that defendants and the Court don't have to wonder.

Bailey does the trial judge determine if there is a retrial or a different judge usually?

The judge in the Giggs case (which ended up with 11 jurors as one was discharged for illness last Friday) in her summing up and in her answer to the jury question about whether recklessness was enough for the charge (in saying it was not and deliberate intent was needed) it seemed to me (including her comments that it wasn't a court of morals or about adultery) to be fairly much suggesting the jury should find an NG.

If it is the same judge I'm not convinced she will grant a retrial.  Given it's alleged coercion and domestic abuse and the pressures and issues that throws up I have no doubt the CPS will ask for one.  They may not get it though.  I have also heard (though have no way of knowing how true this is and it may be self serving) via a mate in Greater Manchester Police that there is fresh evidence that they would seek to admit in a retrial.

Also could a retrial be transferred out at this stage?  Was surprised this was heard in Manc not (say) Preston or Chester.  The Benjamin Mendy Man City rape trial is being heard in Chester and that is lower profile.

CPS Guidance:

Failure of Jury to Agree on a Verdict

There is a presumption that the prosecution will seek a re-trial where a jury fails to agree on a verdict at the first trial.

The following factors should be taken into account when considering a re-trial in these circumstances.

  • The merits of the case;
  • Likely reasons for the jury's failure to reach a verdict;
  • The public interest in seeking a verdict
  • The interests and views of the victim(s);
  • Any views expressed by the trial judge;
  • Prosecuting Advocate's opinion; and
  • The views of the police.

Where two juries fail to reach a verdict, the presumption is that the prosecution will not seek a third trial unless there are exceptional circumstances. Factors that might justify a third trial include:

  • jury interference (this may require further investigation for an offence of jury interference); and additional
  • evidence that has recently come to light and was not available at earlier trials.

The case of R v Bell [2010] EWCA Crim 3 involved an appeal against conviction for murder, following a third trial. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the third trial amounted to an abuse of process. The conviction was upheld.

The Lord Chief Justice however provided words of caution in relation to the use of re-trials:

"... the jurisdiction which permits a second re-trial after two jury disagreements in circumstances like the present must be exercised with extreme caution. The broad public interest in the administration of criminal justice leads us to the clear view that a second re-trial should be confined to the very small number of cases in which the jury is being invited to address a crime of extreme gravity which has undoubtedly occurred (as here) and in which the evidence that the defendant committed a crime (again, as here), on any fair minded objective judgment remains very powerful."

Procedure

It is in the interests of justice that a decision to seek a re-trial should be taken as soon as possible and be communicated promptly to the court, the defendant and the police.

It may be possible to foresee the likely verdict before the trial finishes. Prosecutors and caseworkers should be alert to this possibility. Wherever possible, consultation should take place and a decision reached (subject to any views expressed by the judge) before the jury returns.

In other circumstances, prosecuting advocates should be instructed to seek an adjournment to allow the necessary consideration of the case to take place.

The appropriate length of the adjournment to be sought is;

  • a maximum of 14 days, if the defendant is on bail; or
  • a maximum of 7 days if the defendant is remanded in custody.

A decision should be made by the adjourned hearing date.

If the application for an adjournment is refused, prosecuting advocates should request a re-trial. It should be made clear to the court and the defence that the decision will be subject to review.

When the prosecution is obliged to request a re-trial without the opportunity of fully considering the case, a review of the decision should be made promptly by the Unit Head upon the criteria previously set out. That review should be completed within 14 days if the defendant is on bail, or 7 days if the defendant is in custody.

Levels of decision making

The question of whether to seek a re-trial should be referred to the Unit Head or Head of Division.

Any question of a second re-trial should be referred for a decision by the Chief Crown Prosecutor.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/retrials 

What Heff said.

@ business I guess its more rare in Scotland to have retrials as there are two other verdicts available one of which is of course not proven, and there is no bad character either.

It’s a real bugger not being on Twitter sometimes. I have no idea what the tweet was and am intrigued how it could possibly both refer to the court case and (as he claims) the Glaziers but now obviously can’t find out what the tweet was.

I suppose it will all come out in the wash and I’ll find out eventually long after I’ve lost interest in the case.

And no, I am not asking Roffers to risk contempt proceedings by repeating it here. Please don’t. Would be interested to know from anyone who did see it whether you thought it was ambiguous though.

Join the discussion

Login Register