ABSTRACT
A judge is entitled to reject a verdict which appears to be ambiguous or verdicts which are inconsistent. He may then ask the jury to reconsider the matter. In such a case he may give the jury further directions and ask them to retire again. There have been many cases in which it was alleged that a verdict was ambiguous or verdicts were inconsistent, but few which may be considered so obviously unacceptable as the verdicts in R v Shirley (1964) 6 WIR 561. In that case, from Jamaica, the jury having retired were asked if they had ‘arrived at a verdict’. After ascertaining that the verdict was unanimous the Registrar asked: ‘Is the prisoner Vincent Shirley guilty or not guilty of murder?’ The foreman said ‘guilty’, whereupon the Registrar proceeded to ask if the prisoner was guilty or not guilty of manslaughter, to which the foreman replied: ‘not guilty of manslaughter.’ The Court of Appeal of Jamaica held that the two verdicts could not stand: ‘They are mutually inconsistent for the reason that a verdict of not guilty of manslaughter must of necessity negative an unlawful killing which is an essential element in the offence of murder ...’ The defendant therefore could not be at the same time guilty of the greater offence but not guilty of the lesser. In the circumstances of the case, the trial judge should not have allowed the Registrar to put the second question to the jury. A lesser alternative offence did not arise if the defendant was already found guilty of the greater offence.
