Are you all agreed.....?

The decision to allow Barry George a fresh appeal (see post dated 8/9/06) has turned apparently solely on the reliability of the forensic evidence, but for me what also needs considering - though not necessarily by the Court of Appeal - is the question of whether majority verdicts should be accepted in criminal trials as a matter of course. Although the Act which introduced them makes no mention of it, one of the the main considerations which was in the mind of Parliament at the time was clearly the possibility of a juror being "nobbled", either by bribery or intimidation, and as a result holding out for a not-guilty verdict and so producing a hung jury. Remember this was back in the 1960s when criminal gangs and families had considerable influence, particularly in the big cities. But this was a problem very much of its time, and we've moved on (at least I hope we have) since then. So is it satisfactory today that a person should be found guilty of what might be a very serious offence, when nearly 20% of the jury are unconvinced of their guilt? Has the time perhaps come to require the prosecution to make a formal application for a "majority direction" from the judge where it appears that the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, and to do so on the basis of producing some reasonable evidence that this is an appropriate case for such a direction? And in the case of a charge of murder- the most serious on the calendar - perhaps there should be a rebuttable presumption that such a direction should not be given.