Criminal Cases in the Crown Courts

When reading up on the Crown Courts in the new edition of McNae's Law for Journalists;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/McNaes-Essential-Journalists-David-Banks/dp/0199556458/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255010671&sr=8-1



I found one section on reporting on majority verdicts particularly interesting.

In Crown Court, a judge will initially advise a jury to arrive at a unanimous verdict on each charge however if the jury had 'retired' for at least two hours and ten minutes and has failed to reach a verdict, then the judge will rule that a majority verdict is acceptable for each charge.

Now if a defendant is convicted by a majority then it is unproblematic for the media to refer to the fact that it was by a majority decision. This is because it indicates that one or two people didn't agree with the guilty verdict, and to report this is regarded as fair to the defendant.

However the problems lie in regards to reporting when a defendant is acquitted by a majority vote. It is regarded as 'undesirable' to publish the fact that it was by a majority verdict as it indicated at least one member of the jury believed the defendant to be guilty.

If reported, such an suggestion leaves a stain on the defendant's character even though he or she was cleared of the charge.

This could prove to trip up many journalists who believe they were reporting a seemingly innocuous truth so it is definetely something to watch out for.