ChatterBank1 min ago
Judge Decides Verdict
i heard on the news a while back(and several other times over the years) about a case where the judge "directs" the jury to a guilty or a not guilty verdict. what is the point of a jury being there if he/she has already decided the outcome. if i was on this sort of jury i thnk i would ask him why on earth i was there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by paul1763. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A Judge in England or Wales cannot direct a jury to return a Guilty verdict.
https:/
https:/
One of the duties of a judge is to ensure that the jury knows the law and applies it correctly. In some cases it becomes blindingly obvious that a defendant shouldn't be convicted. e.g. If the defence produces undeniable evidence that the accused person couldn't possibly have been present at the scene of a crime (or have otherwise commissioned it) and the prosecution doesn't dispute such evidence, then it makes sense for the judge to say "This can't go any further; you must acquit the defendant".
The only time that a judge would direct a jury to give a 'guilty' verdict (to the best of my knowledge) would be when the defence relied solely upon an interpretation of the law but the judge is aware of a precedent which invalidates such a defence. e.g. a defendant might be charged with assault and say "Yes, I hit him but I'm not guilty as the law allows me to use 'reasonable force' under the circumstances which applied at the time". If the judge knows of a precedent, from a near-identical case, where a higher court ruled that the 'reasonable force' defence (for that type of situation) has no standing in law, he is then presented with a position where
(a) the defendant has admitted assaulting the victim ; and
(b) it has already been decided that his defence is invalid.
Therefore the only possible outcome should be a 'guilty' verdict.
Now, if you've got time for a little light reading . . .
https:/
The only time that a judge would direct a jury to give a 'guilty' verdict (to the best of my knowledge) would be when the defence relied solely upon an interpretation of the law but the judge is aware of a precedent which invalidates such a defence. e.g. a defendant might be charged with assault and say "Yes, I hit him but I'm not guilty as the law allows me to use 'reasonable force' under the circumstances which applied at the time". If the judge knows of a precedent, from a near-identical case, where a higher court ruled that the 'reasonable force' defence (for that type of situation) has no standing in law, he is then presented with a position where
(a) the defendant has admitted assaulting the victim ; and
(b) it has already been decided that his defence is invalid.
Therefore the only possible outcome should be a 'guilty' verdict.
Now, if you've got time for a little light reading . . .
https:/
well a judge cannot ever direct a jury to find someone guilty in the Uk
http://
I guess if during the trial something came up that unequivocally proved that the defendant was not guilty...then the judge could choose to direct the jury to acquit....but there are real legal eagles on here whereas I am just an interested bystander.
http://
I guess if during the trial something came up that unequivocally proved that the defendant was not guilty...then the judge could choose to direct the jury to acquit....but there are real legal eagles on here whereas I am just an interested bystander.
There is exact case law on this very point
R v Wang I think
our infrequently visiting QC has referred to it
this is different to a half way house application where the defendant's counsel applies to have the proceedings terminated on the grounds of the hopelessness of the crown case [Galbraith application
Judges directing juries took a step forward in Penn;s case ( c 1688 ) when Jeffries ( Judge ) didnt like the verdict of the jury concerning Penn ( yeah he of pennsulvania ) and imprisoned and fined them, This ws overturned
So what happens if the defendant changes his plea to guilty half way thro the case ? another directed verdict I suppose
I shall try to find (my) wang
R v Wang I think
our infrequently visiting QC has referred to it
this is different to a half way house application where the defendant's counsel applies to have the proceedings terminated on the grounds of the hopelessness of the crown case [Galbraith application
Judges directing juries took a step forward in Penn;s case ( c 1688 ) when Jeffries ( Judge ) didnt like the verdict of the jury concerning Penn ( yeah he of pennsulvania ) and imprisoned and fined them, This ws overturned
So what happens if the defendant changes his plea to guilty half way thro the case ? another directed verdict I suppose
I shall try to find (my) wang
it is here on wiki
https:/
and here are their Lordships ipsissima verba ( sorry gone into lawspeak mode)
http://
https:/
and here are their Lordships ipsissima verba ( sorry gone into lawspeak mode)
http://
Galbraith and halfway house applications are here
http://
http://
// If someone changes a plea to guilty during the trial that's it. The trial ceases, there is no verdict. See earlier post for Wang.//
this came up earlier in the week in the newspapers
and the hack scribbled that the judge had directed a verdict
and I thought oo-er what about the evil Wang ?
It may even have been the case Paul was referring to
sorry about repeating all your hard work boys
god isnt it nice to have a brexit free thread ?
this came up earlier in the week in the newspapers
and the hack scribbled that the judge had directed a verdict
and I thought oo-er what about the evil Wang ?
It may even have been the case Paul was referring to
sorry about repeating all your hard work boys
god isnt it nice to have a brexit free thread ?
Happened to me when I was on jury service, quite frankly there was no point in even listening to the evidence for the defence as what was put forward by the prosecution was almost laughable (all witnesses were drunk other than the one-eyed barman who in his words 'couldn't swear to what had happened'). Saved some court time and expense.
“Although, of course, a Newton hearing might still be required before sentencing can take place.”
For those wondering what a “Newton Hearing” is, it is a hearing to establish the facts where they are disputed and where the difference in versions of events would make a material difference to the sentence.
Simple example, speeding. Driver accused of doing 100mph on a motorway (usual sentence in court, fine of a week’s net income and either 6 points or a ban of up to 56 days). He comes to court and says “Yes, I was exceeding the speed limit, but I was only doing 80 mph (usual sentence in court, fine of half a week’s net income and 3 points). So I must plead guilty, but dispute the speed alleged.
Because there is a significant difference between the two penalties a “Newton Hearing” is held. This is not to establish guilt or innocence but to establish the speed. Newton Hearings are often held in cases of violence “You smashed your victim over the head with an iron bar”. “No I didn’t; I just gave him a slap on the cheek”.
The name of the hearing originates from a 1982 case of R v Newton, where Mr. Newton, the defendant, was accused of "***," also called sodomy, with an adult woman. Newton claimed that he was guilty of the act, but insisted that it was consensual between partners. Since the issue of consensus could greatly affect the sentencing, the judge ordered a special hearing in which only the judge, and not a jury, would try to reconcile the facts to determine sentencing.
For those wondering what a “Newton Hearing” is, it is a hearing to establish the facts where they are disputed and where the difference in versions of events would make a material difference to the sentence.
Simple example, speeding. Driver accused of doing 100mph on a motorway (usual sentence in court, fine of a week’s net income and either 6 points or a ban of up to 56 days). He comes to court and says “Yes, I was exceeding the speed limit, but I was only doing 80 mph (usual sentence in court, fine of half a week’s net income and 3 points). So I must plead guilty, but dispute the speed alleged.
Because there is a significant difference between the two penalties a “Newton Hearing” is held. This is not to establish guilt or innocence but to establish the speed. Newton Hearings are often held in cases of violence “You smashed your victim over the head with an iron bar”. “No I didn’t; I just gave him a slap on the cheek”.
The name of the hearing originates from a 1982 case of R v Newton, where Mr. Newton, the defendant, was accused of "***," also called sodomy, with an adult woman. Newton claimed that he was guilty of the act, but insisted that it was consensual between partners. Since the issue of consensus could greatly affect the sentencing, the judge ordered a special hearing in which only the judge, and not a jury, would try to reconcile the facts to determine sentencing.
