Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Justice system's worst nightmare

Patricia Wynn Davies Legal Affairs Editor
Wednesday 05 March 1997 00:02 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

It is the justice system's worst nightmare - a lengthy trial, a string of expensive counsel and solicitors and costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The unenviable decision over whether to embark on an equally lengthy and costly retrial now falls to Barbara Mills QC, Director of Public Prosecutions.

She is expected to consult the Sir Nicholas Lyell QC, the Attorney General, whose consent had to be sought for the prosecution in the first place because it was being brought under the Prevention of Corruption Act. But the final decision is hers.

The tests for whether a prosecution should be brought are whether there is enough evidence to support a realistic prospect of conviction, and whether the trial would be in the public interest. The fact that a jury has failed to agree once on a body of evidence dictates that decisions to press ahead are taken only after careful consideration.

There is nothing to stop the Crown from running the second trial in a different way, but the chances of finding additional evidence are usually slim.

In high-profile cases, the fact that the issues have been publicly aired may also be a reason for concluding that the public interest would not be served by rehearsing them again.

Recent cases where juries were unable to agree include that of showjumper Harvey Smith. Juries twice could not reach a verdict over an assault charge relating to a dispute over a golf course border, and he was cleared.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in