|
|
The |
|
A man who caused a hung jury in a
rape trial because he believed the accused was innocent has spoken out
against plans to end unanimous verdicts. Gordon Ansley
told Parliament's law and order committee he had been a so-called "rogue
juror", the one of 12 who held out for a not-guilty verdict. At present, criminal verdicts must
be unanimous, but the committee is considering a move to majority verdicts as
low as 10 to two after concern at the rise in hung juries. The Law Commission
has linked the increase to rogue jurors, who refuse to take part in
deliberations or to change their position in the face of overwhelming
arguments. Because of laws forbidding the
discussion of jury deliberations, Mr Ansley did not
give details of his case. However, he said he was convinced the evidence
proved the man was innocent and he refused to agree with a guilty verdict. He
later learned the man had been convicted at an earlier trial, but a retrial
was ordered on appeal. A third trial was held after the
hung jury, and the man was convicted and jailed. An appeal for a pardon
failed. Mr Ansley
said there was a range of pressures on jurors, and two people on his jury had
changed their votes from "not guilty" to "guilty" because
they had not been able to smoke during the case. "The last person to leave my
side in this debacle did not do so because he suddenly became convinced of
the defendant's guilt. Rather, around 5pm, over seven hours after we had
entered the courthouse, he described himself to me as being a lump of jelly
and that he had to get out of there," he said in his submission. A better solution would be special
panels that could interview dissenting jurors to see why they voted the way
they did, he said. |
