R. v Pinches

A trial judge may give a cautious Watson direction even after a jury reports difficulty in reaching a verdict. The direction must encourage collective discussion without pressuring any juror to abandon a conscientious assessment of the evidence. Whether to give it is primarily for the trial judge. An appellate court will intervene only if that decision lay outside the range of reasonable conclusions or rendered the conviction unsafe.

At a retrial in Cardiff Crown Court, the appellant faced allegations arising from an altercation involving his car and the complainant. The jury could not reach a verdict on the first count and was discharged from considering it. The case continued on a second count alleging unlawful violence causing the complainant to fear for his safety.

The jury had reported difficulty in reaching a majority verdict on that count. After the judge gave a Watson direction, despite the defence objection, it returned an 11:1 guilty verdict about 15 minutes later. The appellant appealed against conviction with leave of the single judge, contending that the direction had imposed undue pressure and made the verdict unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. A Watson direction was not prohibited. R v Watson [1988] QB 690 remained good law, and a judge could use a cautious direction to encourage jurors to pool their experience, listen to each other and seek agreement.
2. The overriding safeguard was that no juror could be pressured into returning a verdict contrary to conscience or that juror’s assessment of the evidence. The direction had to preserve that safeguard.
3. The decision whether to give such a direction was principally one of jury management for the trial judge, who was best placed to assess the position. This court could interfere only if the decision was outside the range of reasonable conclusions.
4. An indication that a jury was having difficulty, or even thought it might be unable to agree, did not itself prevent a judge from giving the direction. The court rejected any categorical rule that a Watson direction should never be used.
5. Here, the jury’s note on the second count did not say that agreement was impossible. It said that the jurors were closer to a decision, although they remained divided. The rapid return of an 11:1 verdict caused some disquiet, but it did not establish undue pressure. The circumstances were materially different from those in R v AB [2006] EWCA Crim 786, where separate matters affected the safety of the verdict. The judge was therefore entitled to give the direction, and the conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2010] EWCA Crim 2000, dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Cardiff Crown Court — at the retrial in February 2010, the jury was discharged on the first count after stating that there was no realistic prospect of a verdict. Following a Watson direction, it convicted the appellant by an 11:1 majority on the second count.