Max Clifford Latest

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27131112

Apparently the Judge has said that the Jury can now convict Max Clifford, when they are only partly sure he is guilty, instead of fully sure !

[mikey4444]

What a bl**dy farce this is turning out to be, After 5 days of deliberation, the Jury still can't come to a decision.

[ToraToraTora]

yes I too am nervous of non unanimous verdicts, especially of late where the CPS have been shown to be a complete shower!

[tonyav]

I see it's only a ten person jury wonder why it's not the normal 12 person jury.

[grumpy01]

Obviously Jury are not that close to a 9 to 1 verdict.Probably split 50:50 and a retrial will be called costing the taxpayer a load more money.

[grumpy01]

Apparently two have been separately discharged during the trial.

[douglas9401]

Justice, like Easter, seems to be a moveable feast.

Farce.

[woofgang]

mikey, that's a bit misleading the way you have phrased it. The majority of the jury still have to be sure. Apparently two of the jurors have been discharged from the case, it doesn't say why.

[tonyav]

Ah, thanks grumpy.

[Buenchico]

The first juror to be discharged had informed the judge that she knew one of the witnesses. The reason why the second juror was discharged hasn't been made public.

[jno]

this is hardly uncommon procedure and hardly a farce. It's nothing to do with being "partly sure he's guilty", whatever that may mean.

[mikey4444]

This trial has been going on for weeks, two of the original Jury are no longer serving, and after 5 days of deliberating, the Jury that is left still can't come to a decision. Not sure what other word than farce can apply here.

[askyourgran]

It is another 'historic' case and imo has been handled badly. Of a full jury, two were discharged and nine have agreed that he is guilty. One has not. Yet the judge has decreed that the majority verdict has been reached, it has been done this way to save the tax-payers money on a re-trial. However sleazy Mr Clifford is I don't think he should have been dragged back and hung out to dry this way.

[jno]

the judge hasn't said a majority verdict has been reached. He's said if nine (out of ten) of them agree on any given charge, that will do; he doesn't know if nine have done so or will do so.

Juries taking a long time to agree on a series of charges isn't a farce. It's justice.

[bibblebub]

If the judge has misdirected the jury then that can be used for an appeal, but if he has been using standard procedures then he is entitled to make such a decision.

[jno]

it's standard procedure to agree to accept a majority rather than unanimous verdict if the jury have been debating for ages (the minimum is two hours 10 minutes, though it's usually much longer).

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

[scooping]

Farce, guilty or not. British 'justice' a joke.

[askyourgran]

The link says that the judge has decreed that the jury get a majority decision............. "Which is not the verdict of you all but it must be the verdict of which at least nine of you are agreed". The jury have been unable to make a unanimous decision on all counts. It has taken five days to get this far, and the court re-convenes tomorrow.
Bearing in mind these alleged assaults are over 30 years old I would find it difficult to give a clear reasoned judgement on that myself.

[scooping]

Consider this.
Four out of five defendants in the last ten years, appearing for serious crimes in Merseyside crown courts, facing a local jury, and pleading not guilty, are acquitted. All that time, effort and expense to try to bring people to book for some terrible crimes wasted. Juries won't convict. Worse, the crimes go on..