Episode 13 - Judge, Jury, Summing-Up

Apr 23 2024 • 50 mins

In Episode 13, we hear the final closing speech from Ivy Jewell on behalf of Conor Williams, and then the judge sums-up the case to the jury.

As the judge explains, the judge is ‘the judge of the law’ and the jury are ‘the judges of the facts’, their task being to evaluate the evidence and apply the law as they are directed to do.

And as we will find out, even to trained lawyers, directions on law can be complicated, so to ease their task jurors are now given written legal directions and a written ‘route to verdict’, a step-by-step roadmap to follow which - depending on their view of the facts - will lead them to a verdict of either guilty or not guilty in each defendant’s case.

You can see the written route to verdict in our case in the Podcast Legal Notes below.

There are a number of standard judicial directions in every summing-up, as well a number of directions tailored to the specific issues in the case, all aimed at ensuring the jury takes the correct approach to their task and delivers a true verdict according to the evidence.

When the summing-up is finished, the jury in the case of R v Aidan Johnson and Conor Williams will retire to consider their verdict, a verdict which we will hear in Episode 14, the last Episode in Series 1 of the Defence Barrister Podcast.

As ever, thank you for listening.

NOTES

Throughout this podcast I have referred to legislation, cases and to further information and reading. Please refer to the links in the Legal Notes below to access this information yourself.

You will also find a list of the characters in this podcast below to help you.

CHARACTERS

Defendants -

Aidan Johnson - (visually described at the scene as white, dark hair and a pink shirt)

Bianca Jones - (now acquitted following submission of no case to answer) (visually described at the scene as white, slim, wearing a green top and with long dark hair)

Conor Williams - (visually described at the scene as black, short hair, white t-shirt and stocky build)

Prosecution Barrister -

Keith Lowe

Defence Barristers -

Gabriella Hadden - representing Aidan

Henry Irwin - representing Bianca

Ivy Jewell - representing Conor

Defence Solicitors -

Georgina Hale - representing Aidan

Holly Ibsen - representing Bianca

Ramesh Jayanshankar - representing Conor

The Deceased -

Daniel Clarke - (visually described as having bright blond hair and dark clothing)

Main Prosecution witnesses -

Ethan Green (friend of Daniel Clarke)

Finn Hawkins (friend of Daniel Clarke)

LEGAL NOTES

Summing Up -

Crown Court Compendium, Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/crown-court-compendium/

Criminal Procedure Rule 25.14 - Directions to the jury and taking the verdict

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/rule/25.14/made

Criminal Practice Directions 2023 - 8.5 Jury Directions and Written Material

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf

R v N [2019] EWCA Crim 2280 (para 19) - the importance of written directions on complex matters of law https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2019/2280.html

WRITTEN ROUTE TO VERDICT

Concerning the defendant Aidan Johnson:

Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2, if no, the verdict is Not Guilty.

Q2 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure he was not acting in self-defence, go to question 3. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe he was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict is Not Guilty.

Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he intended to cause Daniel Clarke really serious harm? If yes, the verdict is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty.

Concerning the defendant Conor Williams:

Q1 Are you sure that Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle? If yes, go to question 2. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.

Q2 Are you sure that by his words or actions Conor Williams intentionally encouraged Aidan Johnson to attack Daniel Clarke? If yes, go to question 3. If no, the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.

Q3 Are you sure that when Aidan Johnson struck Daniel Clarke with the broken bottle, he was not acting in lawful self-defence? If you are sure that Aidan Johnson was not acting in self-defence, go to question 4. If you are not sure (i.e. you believe Aidan Johnson was or might have been acting in self-defence) the verdict for Conor Williams is Not Guilty.

Q4 Are you sure that Conor Williams intended by his words or actions that Aidan Johnson would cause really serious harm to Daniel Clarke? If yes, the verdict for Conor Williams is Guilty. If no, the verdict is Not Guilty.

PLEASE NOTE:

It is a pleasure to hear from you and to answer your questions, but due to the matters set out below please understand that there are certain questions I am unable to respond to:

Please bear in mind that this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

I am unable to provide legal advice on your specific case. If you require legal advice about a specific case or legal problem it is vital that you seek legal advice from a legal professional, such as a barrister or solicitor.

Due to contempt of court provisions and other legal requirements, I am limited in what I can say about ongoing legal proceedings in any court.

The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this podcast are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

Thank you for your understanding.

CONTACT

Email: podcast@defence-barrister.co.uk

X https://twitter.com/defencebar

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/defencebar/

External links to (and provision of information from) .gov.uk websites, the sentencing council website (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), the Judiciary website (judiciary.uk) and other information subject to Crown copyright is provided under the terms of the open goverment licence.