5.3 Perseverance direction[1]

1.  I have been told that you have not been able to reach a verdict. Although I have the power to dismiss you without a verdict having been reached, I should only do this if I am satisfied that you will not be able to reach a verdict even if you are given more time for discussion. I am not satisfied yet that this is the case.

2.  What I urge you to do is to return to the jury room and try to resolve your differences. Experience has shown that juries can often agree if given more time to consider and discuss the issues.

3.  Each of you has affirmed or sworn that you will give a true verdict according to the evidence. That is an important responsibility. You must fulfil it to the best of your ability. Each of you takes into the jury room your individual experience and wisdom. Judge the evidence fairly and honestly in that light.

4.  You have a duty to listen carefully and with an open mind to the views of every other juror. You should calmly weigh up each other’s opinion about the evidence, and test them by discussion.

5.  Calm and rational discussion might convince you that your original opinion about some issue was wrong. But, that said, you must always reach your own decision, according to your own view of the evidence. If, after calmly considering the evidence and listening to the opinions of other jurors, you cannot honestly agree with their conclusions, then you should not change your mind simply to permit a unanimous verdict. You must not agree to a verdict unless you honestly and genuinely think that it is the correct one. If you did otherwise, you would breach your oath or affirmation.

6.  What I ask you to do, then, is to return to the jury room, re-examine the issue or issues about which you disagree, and make a further attempt to reach a unanimous verdict.[2]

Last updated: 14 April 2014

1

[1] Note: This charge is a guide only, and may require modification to fit the facts of an

individual case

[2] This direction does not contain a majority verdict text. Although an amalgamated perseverance and majority verdict direction may be given, that has been said not to be the preferable course: R v Ahmet [2009] VSCA 86 [71].