What does 'Discharge a jury' mean?

[stevensfo]

I was just reading on Yahoo news about the Barclays Four case and read this:

The jury has been discharged in the fraud case against four former Barclays executives related to a 2008 fundraising from Qatar.
Presiding Judge Justice Jay discharged the jury at Southwark Crown Court on Monday.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/jury- ... 26995.html

Anyone know exactly what this means and why would a judge do it? An internet search hasn't really helped.


Steve

[pochisoldi]

It's short hand for "discharged from their duty".
Put another way, a juror, once discharged, is released from that period of jury duty.

[dionaeamuscipula]

I was just reading on Yahoo news about the Barclays Four case and read this:

The jury has been discharged in the fraud case against four former Barclays executives related to a 2008 fundraising from Qatar.
Presiding Judge Justice Jay discharged the jury at Southwark Crown Court on Monday.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/jury- ... 26995.html

Anyone know exactly what this means and why would a judge do it? An internet search hasn't really helped.


Steve

It almost certainly means the jury has been unable to come to a verdict, eg that 6 are saying guilty and 6 not guilty, and no one is budging. So the trial is abandoned and the CPS or whoever is prosecuting will need to decide whether to permanently abandon or have another go with a different jury at a later date.

In the UK it is difficult to consider why this sort of thing happens because the law on juries makes research into their deliberations very difficult.

DM

[kiloran]

I believe a jury can also be discharged if, for example, one or more members discuss the case outside the trial, in social media for example. It would be impossible for them to be replaced part-way through a trial. In that case, I think a retrial with a new jury would be required.

This is a fraud case which I suspect can involve very complex and specialised issues, I guess it's possible that the jury made it known that the issues were too complex for them to understand.

--kiloran

[stevensfo]

Thanks for the explanations. I was simply wondering how a whole jury could be discharged.

This is a fraud case which I suspect can involve very complex and specialised issues, I guess it's possible that the jury made it known that the issues were too complex for them to understand.

Which the accused were only too aware of and no doubt have a good defence lawyer who will make the case sound so complicated that the judge may dismiss it.

Steve

[scrumpyjack]

it's curious that there doesn't seem to have been any comment in the press on what this may mean for the Barclays trial.

Is there a chance the trial will collapse, or are they having to select a new jury.

The lawyers will be doing well out of this one!

[kiloran]

it's curious that there doesn't seem to have been any comment in the press on what this may mean for the Barclays trial.

I think reporting restrictions were in place, which will restrict what the press can say

--kiloran

[pochisoldi]

it's curious that there doesn't seem to have been any comment in the press on what this may mean for the Barclays trial.

I think reporting restrictions were in place, which will restrict what the press can say

--kiloran

The case is still sub judice, so reporting restrictions and the requirement for press restraint in the interests of justice are implied anyway.

[stevensfo]

it's curious that there doesn't seem to have been any comment in the press on what this may mean for the Barclays trial.

I think reporting restrictions were in place, which will restrict what the press can say

--kiloran

The case is still sub judice, so reporting restrictions and the requirement for press restraint in the interests of justice are implied anyway.

The Barclays Four scandal has been going on for months. Loads written about it. RBS and Lloyds must be drowning in Bollinger champagne at the thought that the spotlight is not on them.

What is interesting is that almost every report goes to great lengths to remind us that Qatar has not been involved.

Besides, they are far too busy in Malta with their BANIF bank or BNF as they recently changed the name.

Then, with the Saudis and Yemen involved, where is Blackadder and Baldrick when you need them?

Steve