Taking the verdict after a majority direction
If a jury returns after receiving a majority direction, the court clerk will ask the foreman if at least 10 of them (or 9 if there are only 10 jurors) have agreed upon their verdict; if the answer is yes, the foreman will be asked for the verdict.
If the verdict is Guilty the foreman will be asked if that is ‘the verdict of you all or by a majority?’ If it is by a majority the next question is how many agreed and how many dissented?
If, on the other hand, the verdict is Not Guilty the court clerk will not ask how many agreed or dissented.
Retrial - What happens after a hung jury is discharged?
When a hung jury has been discharged, the usual practice is for the defendant to be tried again by a different jury.
The prosecution will usually be given 7 days to notify both the court and the defence if they wish to proceed for a second time.
The reasons for being given this time include the opportunity to gain witness availability and consult with witnesses (who would have to give evidence for a second time) and also to consider if there are any fundamental weaknesses in the case that tend against asking for a retrial; for example, sometimes a prosecution witness whose evidence appeared watertight on paper might have been shown to be unreliable during cross-examination by the defence.
If a jury are unable to agree following a second trial, the convention is for the prosecution not to seek a third trial but to offer no evidence (which results in a Not Guilty verdict). It will only be in exceptional cases that a third trial would be sought.
Uncompleted trials
When a problem occurs during a trial and the jury are discharged for reasons other than being unable to reach a verdict, this will not count as a first or second trial (as in a hung jury situation) for the purposes of the prosecution deciding whether or not to seek a retrial.
Examples of situations in which a jury may be discharged (other than when they are unable to agree upon a verdict) are:
- The prosecution or defence have inadvertently introduced evidence which the judge had previously ruled inadmissible and the judge takes the view that a fair trial with that jury is no longer possible;
- A juror has improperly carried out research on a witness and informed fellow jurors of their discoveries;
- Too many jurors have become ill during the case, or for other reasons are unable to continue, and there are insufficient jurors left to continue.