Afternoon:
10°c
Verdict was interrupted by holidays and illness
Justin Davenport, Crime Correspondent9 Sep 2008
The liquid bombs trial was plagued by delays, illness and technical problems.
The jury deliberated for just 52 hours - but their discussions were interrupted by a summer holiday, frequent sickness and breaks for other reasons. One juror had to attend two hospital appointments after he injured his foot stepping on a golf ball.
They took five weeks to reach majority verdicts after being sent out by the judge Mr Justice Calvert-Smith on 28 July.
A total of 11 days were taken up with holidays and a training course and three days with juror sickness.
Lawyers believe their deliberation at Woolwich crown court was stalled by the judge's decision, taken at the start of the trial, to take the break at the start of August rather than later.
The jury sat only five days before going on holiday and returned on 19 August. They deliberated for further four days before the Bank Holiday and then another three days between 26 and 28 August.
The judge allowed them another three-day break because one juror needed to go on a training course at the start of September.
They were due to return on 4 September but the previous night the granddaughter of one of the women jurors was taken to intensive care after her heart stopped. Lawyers decided to give her another two days to recover before deciding whether to discharge her from the jury.
A male juror, who had repeated problems with migraines, sent a note to the judge saying it was brought on by the stress of reaching a verdict.
He also hinted that other jurors may be pressuring him. Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said: "If any of you believe the conduct or behaviour of one or more of your fellow jurors is straying beyond the acceptable and appropriate I need to know in detail."
When juror had to go to hospital and the judge decided to arbitrarily change the time of an appointment to make sure he was seen quicker, the jury rebelled by demanding an extra day off.
Reader views (3)
Many critics of this decision are unaware of the high standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution. The prosecution has to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" that a specific criminal act was committed.
- Martin, London UK, 09/09/2008 14:09
Report abuse
I bet I know what kind of people some of these jurors were. A certain religion perhaps?
- Frederick, London, 09/09/2008 13:52
Report abuse
How interesting it would be to see how the Jury was made up.
If the jury can't make a decision with this kind of evidence then of course what you will get to is waiting till something big happens and then these self same ordinary people as in the Jury will ask why they couldn't be stopped before they let off their bombs and made their video. The answer is in this very case!
- Pat, sussex, 09/09/2008 10:06
Report abuse
