Juries

[Spicerack]

This Fiona Onasanya case has thrown up a few questions to me.
Is it unusual for a Judge to demand/request a unanimous verdict?
Then change it to a majority verdict?
What constitutes a majority verdict. Obviously 10-2 but what about any majority down to 7-5.
The reason I ask that is there are only 11 jurors in this case, so therefore there should be an instant majority. (they've been out since Thursday morning)
Can a juror/jurors abstain from giving their verdict?
Presuming jurors aren't sequestered, are they ordered/asked to avoid the internet?

[Barmaid]

The normal rule is a unanimous verdict. However once the jury have been out for a long while and it becomes clear that not all agree the judge will direct a majority. So in this case I imagine he will direct a verdict on which 10 agree.

They are ordered not to discuss outside and told to try and avoid reports but anything they do see they must disregard.

[Barmaid]

Relevant statutory provision here

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/23/section/17

[Spicerack]

Can individual jurors abstain, say they can't make their minds up, BM?

[Barmaid]

They can't abstain so to speak but if they can make up their minds it's a not guilty. If they can't reach a majority verdict it's a hung jury and they are discharged. Defendant is then at the risk of a retrial.

[Peter Pedant]

yes they are ordered not to go onto the internet
so they dont read your opinion above and er believe it

which I did of course scrupulously

the hangers on shouted at us as we went in
the men ( the real men that is) determined to bring in staves the next day and go at them if there was any lip

yes the men on the jury were going to attack the hangers on if provoked

I thought I had better tell the judge - in a note of course which was read out in court of course -

all this was little snottisham assize - I got elected foreman as the other liked the idea of someone partially sighted giving the verdict - and yes there was one hold out -

the week after I found one of the defendants had done two years previously after beating up a half-blind pensioner who 'had *** him off'

and of course I would do nothing different today
( three years and six years)

[names and details changed to protect the guilty]

[Spicerack]

Do we have jury selection like you see in the US?
In a case like this, you'd only need a couple of the left wing loonies, of the sort we see on here, holding out. They'd be unlikely to convict a Labour politician, doubly so if they were black. (the defendant not the juror)

[New Judge]

"Do we have jury selection like you see in the US?"

No we don't. Almost.

In 1988 the right of the defence to challenge a juror without reason was abolished but the prosecution's right was retained. However this right is very strictly controlled under guidelines issued by the Attorney-General and is only exercised very rarely (too lengthy to go into here). In a case such as the one in question the prosecution's right to challenge jurors would not be exercised.