Do jurors have the right to apply their conscience when giving a verdict? This centuries-old principle of our jury system is at stake after a landmark hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice (RCJ).

The question arises because a group of women have appealed their convictions based on the directions that the judge at their trial gave the jury. The women had been charged with criminal damage for breaking glass windows during a protest at JP Morgan Chase in London in September 2021—an action intended to highlight the bank’s continued investment in fossil fuels.

During their trial in February 2024 at Inner London Crown Court, posters were displayed near the court by members of the public, informing passers-by that jurors have an “absolute right” to acquit a defendant on grounds of conscience. Some people also held placards with the same messaging.

In response, Judge Silas Reid told the jury that the signs were “misstating the law”. He then said, “It is only on the evidence you are able to try the case, and not on conscience or favouritism or the like… It is a criminal offence for a juror to do anything from which it can be concluded that a decision will be made on anything other than the evidence in the case.”

The women’s case before the Court of appeal is that their convictions are unsafe because the jurors may have felt pressure to convict them, fearing that if they found the defendants “not guilty”, Reid might presume they’d taken something other than the evidence into account—and that this would be a criminal offence. Notably, Reid went beyond telling the jury to disregard the posters, expressly instructing jurors that they could only try the case on evidence and “not on conscience”. The women’s case is that Judge Reid himself has misstated the law.

So, what is the law?

Continue reading this feature on the Prospect website