Lillis Trial and Jury Verdicts

Red_Marauder

There seem to be two interesting factors arising out of the Lillis manslaughter veridict and the judge's direction to the jury prior to them having reached this verdict:

1. That the reasons for the jury reaching a particular verdict (manslaughter) would have to be shared by a majority of the jurors
2. That the jury would answer in court to give reasons for the decision that they have reached.

Is this a new departure for Irish law?

And what implications do you think it will have on the role of juries in criminal law into the future - perhaps even as Roscoe Pound referred "jury lawlessness (being) the great corrective of law in its administration"

TJM

Good questions. Without access to a transcript of the directions it's hard to comment, but if the jury is required to give a reason behind their finding of manslaughter this is in effect compelling them to bring in a special verdict - which (leaving aside insanity findings) is extremely unusual in Irish criminal law.

johnnyskeleton

I didn't think they were required to give their reason for finding manslaughter. Judge White pointed out that they could not agree on manslaughter if they all had different views on what happened, because that should properly result in a hung jury. So his direction was if 10 of you think there was provocation bring in a verdict of manslaughter, if 10 of you think it was an accident, bring in a verdict of manslaughter, but if 5 of you think it was provocation and 5 of you think it was an accident, don't bring in a verdict of manslaughter but instead keep debating.

Red_Marauder

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I didn't think they were required to give their reason for finding manslaughter.

The foreman of the jury was asked.
The reason given was that the jury felt the prosecution had failed to prove intent to murder.

Judge White pointed out that they could not agree on manslaughter if they all had different views on what happened, because that should properly result in a hung jury. So his direction was if 10 of you think there was provocation bring in a verdict of manslaughter, if 10 of you think it was an accident, bring in a verdict of manslaughter, but if 5 of you think it was provocation and 5 of you think it was an accident, don't bring in a verdict of manslaughter but instead keep debating.

Yes but this is also a new departure I thin - I'm not sure that this has been a requirement before and I think there is going to be an appeal. There was considerable arguing on this in court between the defence and the judge which couldn't be reported on at the tiime for legal reasons.

Tom Young

Hi folks, I'd remind subsequent posters that this case will be back before the Courts in relation to sentence, so no wild remarks etc.

TJM

The Sunday Times explains why it was proposed to ask the jury for reasons:

Judge White wanted to implement a January 13 decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which could remove some of the secrecy surrounding Irish jury deliberations. The judge said that following the Taxquet vs Belgium case he could ask the jury to give a reason for their verdict as he was offering them the choice of murder, acquittal and four types of manslaughter.

In the Taxquet case, the ECHR said a convicted man had a right to know the motivation behind a jury’s verdict. It said in a system of trial by the people, it is important to explain to the public on what reasoning a decision was reached.

Both the defence and prosecution in the Lillis case objected to the judge asking the jury to specify how they had reached their verdict.

Mary Ellen Ring, for the prosecution, said the ECHR decision was “inconsistent” with trial by jury, where the deliberations have to be secret “and the reason for making a decision” has to be secret.

White agreed not to ask the jury to explain their verdict.

The judgment in Taxquet v. Belgium is very interesting indeed from an Irish perspective, but should be treated with care as the case has been referred to the Grand Chamber where a judgment is pending.