At the conclusion of a criminal trial, after all the evidence has been presented and closing speeches from the prosecution and defence, a jury will be asked to retire and come to a verdict.
This might be one verdict or several, depending on how many charges the defendant, or defendants, face.
If all 12 jurors agree, the Bailiff will be notified, and the foreman will stand up in court to announce the result.
However, in cases where jurors can’t arrive at a unanimous verdict, the Bailiff will generally give instruction for a ‘majority’ decision. This means that if ten jurors agree – as opposed to the original twelve – a guilty verdict can be arrived at.
If a jury still can’t agree even after a majority instruction, then the jury is ‘hung’, and the defendant(s) will be discharged.
Although this does not mean the defendant is found ‘not guilty’, it does excuse them from having to enter into the trial process again for the charges jurors could not agree on. Or, at least, for now.
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat earlier this week lodged a proposal to introduce ‘retrials’ in the rare cases when a jury cannot reach a majority decision, or when new evidence comes to the surface post-conviction.
The Home Affairs Minister said this week that the “considerable impetus” for reform comes in the wake of the L’Ecume II maritime collision trial last year. The tragic incident claimed the lives of skipper Michael Michieli and crew members Larry Simyunn and Jervis Baligat in December 2022.
Commodore Goodwill second officer Lewis Carr was convicted of conduct endangering ships, structures, and people at sea after a four-week trial.
But the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the more serious manslaughter charge, resulting in a ‘hung jury’.
In 2018, the then-Home Affairs Minister Kristina Moore proposed major overhauls to the legal system, including giving prosecutors the ability to bring about a retrial in the event of a hung jury. However, the section relating to retrials was removed following a successful amendment from a Scrutiny sub-panel.
One of the main arguments against retrials was that they could risk shifting the balance unfairly towards the prosecution, and that prosecutors should not be able to call for a second trial if they had been unable to prove their case and were unable to convince a majority of ten jurors the first time around.
Retrials, though, are firmly back on the agenda following ‘The Laws Review’, a landmark independent report collated by Eleanor Laws KC examining Jersey’s criminal justice system.
The review – which aims to “improve outcomes” for victims of domestic abuse, rape, and other sexual assault cases – recommended 19 changes to the legal system in Jersey.
The 16th recommendation called for legislators to “reconsider the question of retrials when a jury cannot reach a majority decision, or when compelling evidence emerges post-conviction”.
Ms Laws wrote: “During the evidence-gathering stage of my review, several key stakeholders raised the benefits of introducing retrials in appropriate cases.
“When considering the fairness of this proposal, it is of note that the law relating to sexual offences and cases of domestic violence has developed since 2018, and there is a greater understanding of the gravity and prevalence of such offending.”
Advocate Olaf Blakeley, however, previously wrote in Express that retrials run the risk of prejudicing the defendant, especially if the case was widely known or reported on.
He wrote: “The really important point is that in most trials the same outcome would occur again.
“If 12 people cannot agree on guilt or innocence, why would a different set of 12 people do so?
“And what would the public think if the defendant was discharged again? Would it stimulate ‘no smoke without fire’ responses?
“Would it not lead them to conclude, ‘well, he’s definitely done it. They just can’t prove it. If he was innocent, the jury would say so’?
“Would it just confirm the switching of the burden requiring the defendant to prove their innocence despite the law not requiring them to prove anything?”
But in her review published this week, Ms Laws noted that Jersey Courts are “now more familiar with addressing issues relating to the potential prejudice caused by adverse publicity or material available on social media”.
She added that the “question as to how the courts can overcome the problems caused by prejudicial publicity” was “comprehensively dealt with in 2009” in a judgment concerning the child abuse investigation, codenamed Operation Rectangle.
The judgment concluded that jurors were able to distinguish between media reports and court evidence despite widespread media coverage. “Clear judicial directions are regularly given to juries in such cases, and it is expected that they will be followed,” Ms Laws noted.
Deputy Le Hegarat described the review as a “success” and spoke about its potential ramifications for retrials in Jersey.
She said: “What I think is important is that there’s a closure for both parties and, for me, the ability to be able to have a retrial will give that possibility for both to have closure, because I think it can have an effect on both parties – because people will make assumptions.
“I think it’s quite important there is another opportunity to be able to resolve that matter, either for a not guilty or guilty conclusion.”
In an official statement, the Deputy added that the option for a single retrial would bring Jersey “back in line with normal practice in other jurisdictions”.
She wrote: “It ensures serious cases can be resolved properly while still protecting defendants’ rights. The law also updates how the Court of Appeal manages cases where a past acquittal may be quashed because of compelling new evidence.
“These are extremely rare situations, but it has been noted that some of the related process was not outlined in law.”
Ms Laws’ full independent review can be read here: Criminal Justice System Review 2026.