London jury defies judge

Press, 16 November 1987, Page 1

London jury defies judge

NZPA-AAP A jury in London’s Old Bailey law court has refused to obey a senior judge’s orders in a murder trial. Senior lawyers could not recall any other such rebellion in recent times, “The Guardian” newspaper reported. The seven men and five women of the jury on Friday refused to follow Mr Justice Farquharson’s instructions to find a man guilty of the manslaughter of his older brother. The jury members wanted to free William Jennings, aged 23, because they believed he

stabbed bis brother through the heart by accident. Although sent out three times to consider their position, the jurors refused to find Jennings guilty of the admitted charge. Finally his Honour decided to discharge the jury from giving any verdict and then treated the case as a straightforward plea of guilty. He gave Jennings a suspended sentence of two years jail. The revolt happened after Jennings, who was being tried for murder, changed his plea to guilty of the manslaughter

of his brother Michael, aged 25. That was accepted by the judge and prosecution but because the jury was legally still In charge of the case, his Honour asked it to find Jennings formally not guilty of murder but guilty of the admitted manslaughter. The jurors made it clear they did not consider Jennings guilty of either crime and were applauded by relatives in court. When the jury returned from deliberating, his Honour was told that if considered.,

Jennings had pleaded guilty to manslaughter out of remorse. The most famous case of defiance by a jury was in 1670 when a jury refused to convict two men of preaching to an unlawful assembly. A plaque in the Old Bailey pays tribute to the “courage and endurance” of the men. They remained determined despite being locked up without food for two nights and members were fined for their verdict of not guilty. Later a Chief Justice established the right of juries to give verdicts according to their convictions.