@RichardAshwell @cstross an instance of similarity between the UK and US.

We call it Jury Nullification. Absolutely legal for a jury to issue any verdict for any reason, despite common instructions from a judge that “if you believe evidence $X you MUST $Y”. Nah. Jury can give any verdict they want.

But even mentioning that you know the right exists will get you removed from consideration during jury selection, which is a quick way to get out of jury duty if that’s your goal. Just show up in an “Ask Me About Jury Nullification” shirt. But judges and prosecutors will absolutely do everything in their power and sometimes outside it to prevent people being made aware of its existence.

But if you want to serve, and one should IMO, know that as a juror you absolutely can disregard the law and vote your conscience, and inform your fellow jurors of that same right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States

Jury nullification in the United States - Wikipedia

@Sonikku @RichardAshwell @cstross

It's called "jury equity" in 21st century U.K. law.

Robin Auld (LJ) named the concept a "perverse verdict" when he did a law review in 1999, but a lot of modern commentators assert that that is a bad name, the idea that it is somehow "perverse" for a jury to disagree arrogating the jury's powers to the judge and prosecutor.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20070212075407/http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ccr-05.htm#p99

#UKLaw #JuryEquity

UK Government Web Archive

This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page http://www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/ccr-05.htm looked like on 12 Feb 2007 at 07:54:07