Closing speeches, judicial directions, deliberation and verdict

Closing submissions connect evidence to the legal issues. They are not additional evidence. The advocate should explain which admitted evidence supports each disputed element, how the relevant burden operates and why the fact-finder should reach the proposed result. Do not introduce new facts, assert personal belief in a witness’s honesty, or invite a decision based on prejudice. A strong speech cannot prove what no witness, exhibit or formal admission established.

The prosecution’s entitlement to close differs by forum. In the magistrates’ court, it may make final representations where the defendant is legally represented or has introduced evidence other than their own. In the Crown Court, it may close where the defendant is represented, has called another live witness about the facts, or the court permits it. The defendant has the final speech. These are the distinctions in CrimPR 24.3(3)(h)–(i) and 25.9(2)(j)–(k). Thus an unrepresented Crown Court defendant calling only themselves does not automatically create a prosecution right to close, although the judge can permit a prosecution closing there.

Magistrates decide facts and apply the law. Lay magistrates receive necessary legal advice; a District Judge performs both functions as a professional judge. The prosecution must still make the court sure of guilt. On conviction, the court must give sufficient reasons for its decision. On acquittal it may explain its reasons. The mandatory conviction-reasons rule is not a requirement for a jury to explain a verdict. See CrimPR 24.3(5)–(6). An acquittal after trial means guilt was not proved; it need not mean that the court positively found every part of the defence account true.

The Crown Court judge gives legal directions and a summing-upGlossary termSumming-up. The jury must understand the elements of each count, the burden and standard, any live defence, the permitted use of particular evidence and the questions leading to its verdict. The evidence is summarised to the extent needed to assist, not necessarily repeated witness by witness. Directions may also be given during the trial when helpful. They are given orally and, as a general rule, in writing. Advocates should identify a missing or mistaken direction promptly through the proper procedure. See CrimPR 25.14 and Criminal Practice Directions 2023, 8.5, in the edition amended on 16 March 2026.

A route to verdict is a structured set of legal questions applied to the facts. It is not a suggested answer sheet. For each defendant and each count, the jury follows the judge’s law, assesses the admitted evidence and decides whether guilt is proved. A judge may comment on evidence but must not take over genuine factual decisions. The jury returns its verdict without reasons; Wang still prevents a direction to convict.

Unanimity is the starting point. The jury must first try to reach a verdict on which everyone agrees. A majority verdictGlossary termMajority verdict is not something jurors can choose for themselves when they become tired or time runs out. It requires a lawful judicial direction and the prescribed agreement. The numerical rules come from Juries Act 1974, ss 16–17, with CrimPR 25.14 and CPD 8.6 governing procedure.

A jury ordinarily starts with 12. If a juror is lawfully discharged or dies, continuation is subject to the court’s powers and the statutory minimum of nine. The majority rules do not permit an eight-person jury to continue an ordinary jury trial, and losing a juror does not reduce the criminal standard of proof.

Separate statute, practice and discretion. Section 17(4) requires a reasonable period for deliberation having regard to the nature and complexity of the case, and in the Crown Court at least two hours. CPD 8.6.2, footnote 95, and 8.6.3 say a majority direction should not be given before two hours and ten minutes; that practice allowance must not be misdescribed as the words of the statute. The clerk records the relevant deliberation time and, where necessary, the cumulative periods. Do not count speeches or a non-deliberating adjournment as jury deliberation. Nor does either minimum compel the judge to give a majority direction: a longer period may be appropriate.

Take the verdict in the proper form. For a majority guilty verdict, the foreperson must state in open court the numbers agreeing and dissenting. Where a not-guilty verdict is returned after a majority direction, the practice is not to ask whether it was unanimous or by a majority. Distinguish that verdict-taking procedure from the requirement that any accepted verdict meet the lawful numbers. See Juries Act 1974, s 17(3); CrimPR 25.14; CPD 8.6.3–8.6.5.

Identify the outcome precisely. Not guilty is an acquittal on the count. Guilty moves that count to sentencing under Deep Dive 11. If jurors cannot agree after the lawful process, the judge may discharge them; a jury unable to agree is not the same as a jury acquitting. A retrial may follow, subject to the applicable prosecutorial and court decisions. Do not promise an automatic retrial or an automatic end to the prosecution. Jurors must not be pressured to abandon conscientiously held views merely to produce agreement.