UK - Alesha MacPhail, 6, raped & murdered, Ardbeg, Isle of Bute, Scotland, 2 Jul 2018 -*arrest* #3

[neteditor]

I bet they all went in that room, closed the door and a few burst into tears. I believe there not allowed to talk to each other until deliberation is that true?

They are allowed to talk to each other but not to discuss the evidence until they are sent out for deliberation.

 

[404_notfound]

What???? "It is not accepted that the crimes of abduction or rape have been committed"......unless I am entirely losing the plot I was of the understanding that all of those charges were on the indictment.

If you read back a bit, it's because murder is a given (she's died and not of natural causes). In Scotland rape is with a penis, so if an implement was used it would be sexual assault, not rape, the jury must decide it if was him, with his penis, to find that it was a rape. And we don't know how she came to be out of her home and it wasn't witnessed, so the jury must decide if he abducted her.

 

[Ciana]

In Scotland, only penile penetration constitutes rape.

(Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009)

Thanks for that, it is different in Australia.

 

[TaylorCallum]

I bet they all went in that room, closed the door and a few burst into tears. I believe there not allowed to talk to each other until deliberation is that true?

Yes, I'm sure. I believe they're not allowed to speak about the case, I think they may be able to talk about other things with each other. What a horrible thing to sit through though. I bet they'll feel relieved that it's coming to an end.

What???? "It is not accepted that the crimes of abduction or rape have been committed"......unless I am entirely losing the plot I was of the understanding that all of those charges were on the indictment.

I think a few people already posted it a few pages back but according to Scottish Law, rape is only defined as nonconsensual penile insertion and since there is no definitive proof whether it was the accused who did it yet, or whether it was an object that was used, it's up to the jury to decide if they think it was rape or not.

 

[Alyce]

In the Crown Court the judge must not, in any event, suggest that a majority is acceptable until after 2 hours and 10 minutes.

--this is from google search...

----this is for England and wales....I can't find info for scotland but I assume it's the same or similar.

That is for a majority verdict, as opposed to a unanimous verdict, and covers cases in England and Wales only.
In England we have to have, at the beginning, a unanimous verdict of 12.
After a certain amount of time, the 2 hrs 10 minutes that you have highlighted, the Judge can allow a majority verdict - which is usually 11 -1 or 10 -2.

In Scotland it doesn't work that way.
They have 15 Jury members and anything over 8 is an accepted verdict.
So, right from the start, the Jury can have any of the following results ;


14 - 1 / 13 - 2 / 12 - 3 / 11 -4 / 10 - 5 / 9 - 6 / 8 - 7

and any of these is accepted immediately as a valid verdict.

Therefore there is no call for what we term in England as a majority verdict.

 

[bronzepurple]

That is for a majority verdict, as opposed to a unanimous verdict, and covers cases in Emgland and Wales only.

In Scotland, there is no need to ask for a majority verdict. It is not possible to achieve with 15 jurors, where the figure needed for a verdict is 8.

Oops I missed the bit about majority verdict. My bad.

 

[CoverMeCagney]

That is for a majority verdict, as opposed to a unanimous verdict, and covers cases in Emgland and Wales only.

In Scotland, there is no need to ask for a majority verdict. It is not possible to achieve with 15 jurors, where the figure needed for a verdict is 8.

So if 8 out of the 15 say he's guilty, he's found guilty?

 

[Gallicrow]

Out of interest do the Jury have to deliberate for a minimum amount of time ? Also what is the shortest time anybody can recall a jury coming to a verdict is ?

I was on the jury for a murder trial many years ago (in England, not Scotland) and the very first thing we did was take a vote. If that had been unanimous, which it wasn't, I think we'd have been done and dusted in less than half an hour.

 

[TaylorCallum]

So if 8 out of the 15 say he's guilty, he's found guilty?

Yes.

 

[Kikixxxx]

So if 8 out of the 15 say he's guilty, he's found guilty?

Yes! Doesn’t seem so unlikely now but I’m still so nervous Incase it’s not proven.

 

[Ruthbullock]

So if you were deliberating on the jury and there is no time limit- would you vote first, then discuss if necessary, or discuss before having a sweep of decision?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

Yes.

What if 5 say guilty, 5 say not guilty, 5 say not proven? Or do the jury not have the not proven option?

 

[TaylorCallum]

What if 5 say guilty, 5 say not guilty, 5 say not proven? Or do the jury not have the not proven option?

They do have a not proven option. In that case he'll be acquitted. You need to have at least 8 people for a guilty verdict.

EDIT: Oops, sorry I never explained myself very well here. neteditor did it better below. They do have a not proven option and they need to reach a majority but if they don't have 8 people who say guilty he won't be found guilty.

 

[neteditor]

What if 5 say guilty, 5 say not guilty, 5 say not proven? Or do the jury not have the not proven option?

ETA as I am not sure I'm right. Researching...

 

[Neko Luna Moon]

They are allowed to talk to each other but not to discuss the evidence until they are sent out for deliberation.

When I was on a jury at the same court, we discussed the case non-stop. The only time we were told to stop was when people continued talking about the case infront of the ladies who were serving us lunch.

 

[Marlinspike]

That is for a majority verdict, as opposed to a unanimous verdict, and covers cases in Emgland and Wales only.

In Scotland, there is no need to ask for a majority verdict. It is not possible to achieve with 15 jurors, where the figure needed for a verdict is 8.

Isn't 8/15 a majority?

 

[404_notfound]

So if you were deliberating on the jury and there is no time limit- would you vote first, then discuss if necessary, or discuss before having a sweep of decision?

I would vote on each charge first, then see if there was a majority, then have everyone speak their reasoning and then vote again. If there was a majority on the first vote i'd try to ascertain if those in dissent were ok with just returning right away, if they were really unhappy then discussion should definitely follow.

In a case like this i'd not be picked, due to my own history (as a child victim of sexual assault) but if i WAS i would NOT want to sit turning over such horrible graphic evidence for hours unless we needed to either.

 

[Edinlass]

Tense...can’t imagine how it is for Aleshas family and of course the jury.

For me it’s guilty so I would have no issues in coming to that conclusion as part of a jury but for some it may not be, that’s when it becomes difficult. I can’t imagine being on the jury and say 7 are agreeable to a guilty verdict and the other 8 aren’t especially in a case as horrific as this. Tensions would understandly heighten, not everyone is going to agree unless of course they all went in the room and every one of the 15 agreed to the accused’s guilt. Somehow I just can’t see that happening, even though I totally and utterly believe he is guilty. That said I beleive he will be found guilty just not by 15/15.

 

[Alyce]

So if 8 out of the 15 say he's guilty, he's found guilty?

Yes

 

[TaylorCallum]

ETA as I am not sure I'm right. Researching...

No, I'm sure you're right I didn't explain myself properly sorry.