Fourth day of deliberations.
_____________
Jury reminded of their duties
In sending out the jury this morning, the judge reminded them of their duties, telling them: “I stress now that each of you is entitled to ask questions and to raise issues that you consider to be relevant. No-one is entitled to impose their opinions on others. There must be a free and frank exchange of views. That is the way that you should strive to reach a true verdict, according to the evidence.”
“There must be a free and frank exchange of views. That is the way that you should strive to reach a true verdict, according to the evidence.”
This is a fuller version of what the judge said before jurors retired to begin deliberations for a fourth day.
Sir Peter told the court: “The strength of the jury system is that citizens drawn at random from the electoral roll can pull together their different experiences and knowledge of the world.
“One of the last directions that I gave to you on Monday morning was that you should appoint someone not just to deliver your verdict that you have reached but also to chair your discussions to ensure that each of you has the opportunity of asking questions that you want to raise and that each of you has the opportunity of giving your views on matters under discussion.
“And I stress now that each of you is entitled to ask questions and to raise issues that you consider to be relevant. No-one is entitled to impose their opinions on others. There must be a free and frank exchange of views. That is the way that you should strive to reach a true verdict, according to the evidence.”
Jury question - judge sets out guidance and tells them to “continue to strive to reach a unanimous verdict”
The jury just returned to court briefly due to a question that they have.
The judge sets out his guidance to them, in which he tells them they are to “continue to strive to reach a unanimous verdict. If you cannot you should let me know and I can give you a further direction.”
I am just setting out the question and response and apologise for the explanation being delayed slightly, but will set lay it out in the following post.
Judge set out series of questions relating to Duckenfield allegation - jury asked whether they must unanimously agree on each of them
The judge has given the jury a series of questions that they must use to consider their verdict on the allegation against Duckenfield.
There are five of them.
They focus on whether Duckenfield owed a duty of care, if so whether he breached it and, if so, the extent of any alleged breach.
The jury has asked whether they must unanimously agree on each of the questions.
The judge tells the jury: “You must reach, if you can, a verdict on which you are all agreed one way or the other. You cannot convict Mr Duckenfield unless you are all agreed that the answer to each of the five questions is yes.”
...
The judge then draws the jury’s attention to the charge against Duckenfield.
It featured five alleged breaches.
Those alleged breaches are:
a. to identify particular potential confining points and hazards to the safe entry of approximately 24,000 spectators arriving from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough into the designated sections of the stadium;
b. to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators yet to enter within the stadium from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough;
c. in good time, to take action to relieve crowding pressures on and from spectators seeking entry to the stadium from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough;
d. to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators in pens three and four;
e. in good time, to prevent crushing to persons in pens three and four by the flow of spectators through the central tunnel.
Sir Peter says the jury do not need to agree he committed all five of a-e for Duckenfield to be found guilty.
But they need to unanimously agree he committed the same breach or breaches.
So all 12 jurors must agree he committed at least one of those above.
It would not be enough if some agreed he committed one, others agreed he committed another. He could not be found guilty if all 12 could not agree he committed the same one of them.
Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell
I've found it interesting. Everyone knows what happened on that day, but the court case laid out clearly WHY it happened, and what decisions were to be made. It made it all a lot clearer - but not any the less heart breaking. I am intrigued as to what the jury will make of it. I think I would find this very hard. There's knowing what you feel, and then separating it from what you know. Hopefully this jury can do this.