Jersey Unreported Judgments

Watson direction

[2025] JRC 099

Royal Court

(Samedi)

4 April 2025

Before     :

R. J. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff

The Attorney General

-v-

F

S. C. Thomas Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. W. Bell for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        From 14 March 2025, the jury retired in this case at approximately 11.15 am.  Just over 4 hours later, at 3.30 pm, I gave the jury a majority direction.

2.        The jury separated at approximately 5.20 pm on Friday evening, subject to the usual directions, and were invited to resume their deliberations at 9.30 am on Monday 17 March 2025.

3.        In view of the seriousness of the allegations (see the judgment reported at AG v F [2024] JRC 302 in relation to special measures) and the preference of the jury returning a verdict, I considered whether it was appropriate to give a Watson direction in this case.  This direction was considered by the five-judge English Court of Appeal in R v Watson & Ors [1998] 87 Cr App R 1.  The direction was subsequently considered in R v Logo [2015] 2 Cr App R 17 and most recently by the English Court of Appeal in James Watson v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1016 and in R v BJS [2024] EWA Crim 1356.

4.        The principles that can be drawn from these authorities are that a Watson direction is a matter for the discretion of the trial judge.  Exceptional circumstances do not have to arise for such a direction to be given.  Such a direction should only be given after a majority direction has been given and after some further time has elapsed.

5.        A Watson direction may be prompted by a request by the jury asking for assistance.  Generally, a Watson direction should only be given after counsel have had the opportunity of making submissions on the appropriateness or otherwise of giving such a direction.

6.        A Watson direction must always be given in the terms prescribed by case law, namely:

"Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence.  No one must be false to that oath, but you have a duty not only as individuals but collectively.  That is the strength of the jury system.  Each of you takes into the jury box with you your individual experience and wisdom.  Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom.  You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of others.  There must necessarily be discussion, argument and give and take within the scope of your oath.  That is the way in which agreement is reached.  If, unhappily, [10 of] you cannot reach agreement, you must say so."

7.        In this case, counsel for the Crown submitted that I was permitted to give such a direction in the exercise of my discretion.  Counsel for the Defendant did not demur from this view but submitted that I should not, having regard to the nature of the allegations in this case, give the direction.

8.        In the circumstances of this case, there were aspects of the jury's note (which I could not disclose to counsel as it contained a reference to the manner in which the jury were divided after spending in excess of 10 hours in retirement) that ultimately led me to decide that it was not appropriate to give a Watson direction.  I asked the foreman if, given further time to deliberate, she believed that the jury might be able to reach a majority verdict.  She answered this question in the negative.

9.        Nonetheless, there may be cases where a Watson direction is appropriate, particularly having regard to the fact that legislation does not permit re-trials in Jersey where a jury has not been able to reach a verdict.  There is a substantial public interest in trials on indictment being resolved by a conviction or an acquittal.

Authorities

R v Watson & Ors [1998] 87 Cr App R 1.

R v Logo [2015] 2 Cr App R 17. 

James Watson v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1016. 

R v BJS [2024] EWA Crim 1356