Legal direction

[druiaghtagh]

Why does the judge sometimes diretct the jury on the verdict to be reached please?

[dzug]

It's where there is no dispute as to the facts, merely as to whether what happened was illegal or not.

[Grunty]

The jury decide on guilt or innocence, and their decision is based upon the evidence in front of them. Their interpretation of the facts is their own affair, and is not subject to the directions of the Judge. But they must accept what the Judge tells them on a point of law. This means there will be cases where there is no possible verdict except 'not guilty'. Occasionally there will be a trial within a trial, where the prosecution and the defence argue a point of law to the Judge. This is done without the jury being present, so that they do not become biased. Afterwards, the Judge may recall the jury just to direct that because of the point of law, they must acquit.

[Peter Pedant]

I didnt keep the cutting butthere was a case within 10 yrs when the j told thejury to convict ofmanslaughter and they refused

a day or so later he kinda said that that OK, and ppointed out that there was a plaque in the Old Bailey commemorating the time in 1688,9 when the Judge (Jeffries) had fined a jury for reaching the wrong conclusion, and that was thelast time it was done.

[StarskyH]

There are a number of reasons. For example, where at "half-time" when the prosecution have concluded there may be a no case to answer submission. This is done without the jury in the court. If the judge agrees, he can direct them upon their return. Alternatively where the charge in the Judge's view has not been made out, but there is a lesser alternative verdict, he can direct them to consider if the lesser charge. Hope this helps.

[Grunty]

I would say the 1688/9 jury were lucky, Peter. Jeffries was known as The Hanging Judge.