Nurse murdered seven babies

[Bromptonaut]

It may be one of those rare occasions in which the views of the families have been genuinely taken into account.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-66910521

She's in the slammer until, excepting a successful appeal, she exits feet first.

What happens if there's another hung jury? Or if she's acquitted?

Not sure the CPS/Law Officers have thought this through.

 

[BoldonLad]

She's in the slammer until, excepting a successful appeal, she exits feet first.

What happens if there's another hung jury? Or if she's acquitted?

Not sure the CPS/Law Officers have thought this through.

Personally, I can't see any point to the decision, in practical terms. I do understand that the families of those children where no verdict was reached may feel differently of course.

 

[multitool]

She's in the slammer until, excepting a successful appeal, she exits feet first.

What happens if there's another hung jury? Or if she's acquitted?

Not sure the CPS/Law Officers have thought this through.

Nothing.

She has lots of murder convictions.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Nothing.

She has lots of murder convictions.

I was thinking about the parents who presumably want the clarity of a guilty verdict.

But what if it's not guilty or the jury are hung again.

 

[Beebo]

It does seem a colossal waste of time and money in a legal system which is already over subscribed.

 

[multitool]

I was thinking about the parents who presumably want the clarity of a guilty verdict.

But what if it's not guilty or the jury are hung again.

Without wanting to sound fatuous, it is what it is.

This is the nature of the justice system. 'Guilty' is a technical relationship between evidence and the law. 'Not guilty' doesn't mean she didn't do it. It just means the jury decided there wasn't enough evidence to be sure.

 

[spen666]

She's in the slammer until, excepting a successful appeal, she exits feet first.

What happens if there's another hung jury? Or if she's acquitted?

Not sure the CPS/Law Officers have thought this through.

What happens if she is acquitted on retrial? Nothing at all. She will still be serving the whole life term for the offences she was convicted of.


If there is a hung jury again, then the CPS will once again have to consider seeking a third trial. This however is unlikely after 2 hung juries., the CPS rarely proceed to seek a 3rd trial

not sure why you think the CPS have thought this through? It is a relatively common thing to consider whether to seek a retrial after a hung jury

 

[Pale Rider]

She's in the slammer until, excepting a successful appeal, she exits feet first.

What happens if there's another hung jury? Or if she's acquitted?

Not sure the CPS/Law Officers have thought this through.

I suspect they've taken great lengths to think it through.

All bets on that charge are now off, so the CPS will be well aware any result is possible.

Guilty or not guilty is an end to it, another hung jury is probably an end to it because as Spen says, the CPS rarely go a third time.

However, it has been known, so cannot be ruled out of the speculation at this stage.

Moral of the story is what we want from juries is a verdict, guilty or not guilty, matters not which, just do what you were called to court to do and make a bloody decision.

 

[Beebo]

Unless the new jury have been living in a cave they are all going to know about the case beforehand, which will make it tricky.

 

[newfhouse]

Moral of the story is what we want from juries is a verdict, guilty or not guilty, matters not which, just do what you were called to court to do and make a bloody decision.

Really? Jurors should reach their decisions according to their own assessment of what has been presented to them, shouldn’t they? Even if the arithmetic says no agreed verdict has been reached, each will have arrived at their own “bloody decision”. Are you suggesting that some should acquiesce for the sake of a clear majority?

 

[spen666]

Really? Jurors should reach their decisions according to their own assessment of what has been presented to them, shouldn’t they? Even if the arithmetic says no agreed verdict has been reached, each will have arrived at their own “bloody decision”. Are you suggesting that some should acquiesce for the sake of a clear majority?

We seem to have 12 Angry Men ( and women) on this forum

 

[AndyRM]

 

[icowden]

Unless the new jury have been living in a cave they are all going to know about the case beforehand, which will make it tricky.

Knowing about the case isn't a bar to being in the Jury. The key question is whether a juror can put aside their own views and make a judgement on the information that is presented to them in the court and only on that information.

 

[Pale Rider]

Really? Jurors should reach their decisions according to their own assessment of what has been presented to them, shouldn’t they? Even if the arithmetic says no agreed verdict has been reached, each will have arrived at their own “bloody decision”. Are you suggesting that some should acquiesce for the sake of a clear majority?

Just another little insight for you - lawyers, judges and court staff prefer a decision to be made, it doesn't really matter to them what it is.

Letby is an extreme example, but a hung jury on all charges and an inevitable retrial after nine months would have suited no one - apart from Letby.

On a routine level, if you've managed to get a case listed, got through a two or three week trial without mishap and sent the jury out, there's only two decisions you want, guilty or not guilty.

12 Angry Men

I've always thought that film was mis-titled.

There weren't 12 angry men, certainly not Henry Fonda in the lead role, the old guy who gave him some support, the foreman was amenable, as was the salesman - the list could go on.

The only genuinely angry man was the Lee J Cobb character who had a mini-breakdown.

Mind, calling the film 'One Angry Man and Eleven who were Fairly Reasonable' doesn't have much of a ring to it.

 

[newfhouse]

Just another little insight for you - lawyers, judges and court staff prefer a decision to be made, it doesn't really matter to them what it is.

I don't disagree about their preferences but the process should aim to provide a just outcome rather than administrative convenience for practitioners.