Should staff be compelled to have the COVID-19 vaccine?
As The Trial approaches its denouement we spent the penultimate episode focused on the closing speeches and the beginning of the jury’s deliberation.
Our concern of the defendant giving evidence was brought into sharp focus at the close of the defendant’s cross-examination when a juror commented, “why did they put him on the stand, he was not guilty as far as I was concerned”.
The contrasting styles of advocacy and the impact on the jury were instructive during the closing speeches.
While a juror accused Mr Hill QC of lacking charisma in comparison to the mellifluous Mr Ryder QC, the comment failed to recognise that the jury had hung on Mr Hill’s every word.
Charisma comes in various forms; Mr Hill QC’s measured cadence demanded constant engagement while he took the jury through the strands of the prosecution case and invited them to agree that the only proper conclusion which could be drawn was that of Mr Davies’ guilt.
In contrast, in an oratorical flurry, Mr Ryder QC took the jury through the defence case, highlighting the factual deficiencies and inviting the jury to reject the portrayal of Mr Davies as a violent, cerebral individual with cause to murder. Mr Ryder invited the jury to conclude that they could not dismiss the possibility of Carla’s murder coming at the hands of Mr Skinner – a conclusion which would require them to acquit.
As the jury began their deliberation it is helpful to revisit the decision that they must make. In directing the jury as to their role the judge is likely to rely on the guidance found in the Crown Court Compendium:
To convict, the jury must be sure that the defendant is guilty – they must have no realistic doubt of Mr Davies’ guilt.
Over the past few days we have seen jurors reactively discussing isolated pieces of evidence in small groups – something they would have been warned against from the very first day. We also saw the jury introduce personal experience, and bias, into the deliberations. Reassuringly this brief diversion from their role demonstrated the great strength of a jury; any bias – unintentional or otherwise – is checked and balanced against the views of the group.
From what has been shown to the audience it is difficult to sure of Mr Davies guilt but the jury may well form a different view.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility