The lack of unanimity among the jury

[Erik Narramore]

The unanimity requirement was abolished by statute some time before the Bamber case: section 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/13/enacted

Not a good idea.

I would say that the failure of the Crown to secure a unanimous verdict does add a shade of doubt to the case.

[Erik Narramore]

This is a very important point. We must remember that it was not a unanimous verdict.  Two jurors who heard the case throughout found reasonable doubt.  In the past, he would have walked (and I think he should have done).

[Erik Narramore]

If a juror isn't sure, then he must vote to acquit.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused actually did it.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is an absolute bastard.  He must acquit even if he thinks the accused is very dangerous to the community.  The jury has one job only.

That's the standard I am applying - i.e. the standard applied by the courts.  It seems reasonable to me because this approach to things is the basis of all objective/neutral inquiry anyway.  To my mind, your last two posts underline very clearly one of the flaws in the jury system, which is that the vast majority of people simply don't understand the burden of proof.  Like you, most people think that what they think about a case counts or is important in some way.  It doesn't.  What counts is the evidence.  A jury is supposed to put aside their own views, feelings and prejudices and just look at the evidence they have heard and make a decision.

This is why we had the unanimity rule for juries.  The idea is that in every group of 12 or so people, you have an intelligent one or two people.  That intelligent minority - i.e  people like me - could block the mob majority and ensure that cases that didn't reach the standard of proof were thrown out.  This was one of the protections against wrongful convictions.  When two jurors in the Bamber case maintained their Not Guilty vote, Jeremy should have been acquitted on that basis alone.

My decision, so far as I am able 35 years later, is Not Guilty, because the evidence isn't quite enough.  He may be a very dangerous person who killed five people in their own homes with a semi-automatic rifle.  I'm still saying Not Guilty, because the evidence doesn't reach the bar that entitles me to convict him.