THE jury in the trial of a man accused of murdering 35-year-old Guy Hamilton in Barrow has been sent home for the day after spending this afternoon considering their verdict - here we outline the case against Damien Hill and what will happen next.


Guy Hamilton Throughout the course of the week, Preston Crown Court has heard from witnesses to the aftermath of the incident which took place on April 30 last year at Mr Hamilton's flat in Meetings View, Ormsgill.

Damien Hill, 45, of Sowerby Avenue, is accused of slicing through Mr Hamilton's throat with a three-foot machete. He denies murder.

Throughout the trial, Hill has appeared in court dressed in a pair of blue jeans and a grey jumper sat quietly in the dock, his eyes moving from the jury's box, to the judge, to the public gallery.

After the summing-up, the jury was directed by the judge that they were expected to return a unanimous verdict. They were sent out at 12.50pm.

The judge also directed, before the jury was sent out, that they could also consider manslaughter as an alternative to murder, if they were unable to reach an agreement in relation to murder.

At 4.15pm the jury was sent home for the day, set to return on Friday morning to continue considering their verdict.

If a jury is unable to return a unanimous verdict, they may be offered the chance to return a majority verdict (explained below).

MURDER: Where a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills a person with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

MANSLAUGHTER: Split into voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.

HOW DOES A JURY MAKE A DECISION?


Preston Crown Court When the judge has finished the summing up, the jury will go to a private room to consider their verdict.

They have to surrender their mobile phones. Many years ago juries would be kept in the room until a verdict was reached, or if they could not reach a verdict late in the day, then be kept together in a hotel overnight.

This has now changed and juries will be sent home at the end of the court day (normally about 4.15pm) and told that they should not talk about the case until they come back the next day and are back in their room with the other jurors.

WHAT WILL A JURY SAY IN ANNOUNCING THEIR DECISION?

Juries do not give reasons. When they are ready to give their verdict, they will be asked in court whether they find the defendant ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. That is the only thing that the foreperson of the jury will say.

Juries are not asked their reasons and it is in fact illegal for them to say afterwards how they voted or why they came to the verdict that they did.

WHAT ARE MAJORITY VERDICTS?

The jury will be told when they first retire that they must reach a unanimous verdict. Since 1974 juries have been allowed, in certain circumstances, to reach a majority verdict. This is a verdict of 11-1 or 10-2.

If some jurors have been discharged during the trial, perhaps because of illness, then if there are 11 jurors there can be a verdict of 10-1. If there are 10 jurors, then 9-1 is acceptable. If there are 9 or fewer jurors then the verdict has to be unanimous.

The minimum period of time that the jury have to have been thinking about their verdict (‘in retirement’) before a jury can return a majority verdict is 2 hours 10 minutes. In practice, judges will give a jury longer than that.

The general rule is that the longer and more complicated the case, the longer the Judge will give the jury before giving a majority direction. Sometimes it will be several days in a particularly serious case.

When the judge gives a majority direction, s/he will tell the jury that they should try and reach a unanimous verdict. The jury will then go and think about it and can return a majority verdict if the numbers are as above.

In court if the verdict is guilty, then the jury will be asked what the voting figures are, so as to check that the jury have reached a lawful majority verdict.

If the verdict is not guilty, then the jury won’t be asked for the figures. The reason for this is that it is thought undesirable, if there is an acquittal, that there should be on record that some of the jury thought the defendant was guilty.

WHAT IS A WATSON DIRECTIVE?

If it is clear that the jury are struggling to reach a verdict, then a judge can (but is not obliged) give a ‘Watson Direction‘ (sometimes called a ‘give and take’ direction).

This is in the following terms: “‘Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence. No one must be false to that oath, but you have a duty not only as individuals but collectively.

"That is the strength of the jury system. Each of you takes into the jury box with you your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of the others.

"There must necessarily be discussion, argument and give and take within the scope of your oath. That is the way in which agreement is reached. If, unhappily, [10 of] you cannot reach agreement you must say so."

MANSLAUGHTER: AN ALTERNATIVE TO MURDER

In cases where the defendant faces a charge of murder, the prosecution should decide in advance of a trial whether or not an alternative count of manslaughter should be added to the indictment.

If the alternative is added, and the jury cannot reach a verdict in relation to the first count (murder), but return a verdict of guilty in relation to the alternative count (manslaughter), then the prosecution should not seek a retrial on the first count (murder).

If no alternative is included on the indictment, the prosecution must decide when the jury retire to consider their verdict on murder whether to seek a re-trial if the jury cannot agree, or whether it would be prepared to accept the alternative (manslaughter). Note that the prosecution may be directed to consider the alternative in any event.

The reason the prosecution should give prior consideration to this question is because even though manslaughter is not on the indictment, the jury may indicate that it has reached a verdict of guilty on the offence of manslaughter.

The prosecution must then decide whether it will ask the judge to accept the verdict of manslaughter from the jury or discharge them from returning such a verdict.

EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE TRIAL

Day One : Prosecution outlines case


Hill and Mr Hamilton had consumed a large quantity of drink and had taken the drug ketamine before and after they watched Barrow AFC take on Wrexham at Holker Street.

Hill had sliced his drinking pal’s jugular vein, causing damage to his voice box and spine. By the time emergency services arrived, it was too late.

Hill took himself back to the scene of the crime at 1am the next morning, where he was arrested.

Hill admits causing the injury but claims he has little recollection of the event and did not intend to cause serious injury.

Day Two: Testimony from witness who tried to save Guy's life


After the attack, Guy Hamilton stumbled across the road to the front door of Callum Stuart.

When Mr Stuart reached the door, Mr Hamilton had one hand pressed against the centre of his throat and another outstretched, holding a mobile phone on a call to 999.

As he lowered Guy to the pavement in front of his home, Mr Stuart spotted Damien Hill outside Mr Hamilton’s doorway smoking a cigarette.

Hill's mother Judith McEwan, and Councillor Bill McEwan, Hill's stepfather, described him admitting to slitting Guy's throat and then going back to the scene to hand himself in.

Day Three: Hill takes to the stand


Hill said he remembered drinking at least two cans of Carlsberg Special Brew, one can of Fosters, another can of lager, two pints of beer, and an unknown number of pre-mixed vodka drinks.

He tells the court he has no recollection of the attack

Hill said "I didn't want to kill Guy, a person I've known for 20 years, I'd never had a fight or argument with him".

Court hears Hill lives a "hermit-like existence" and has battled alcohol issues all his life.

Day Four: Prosecution and defence summing-up

Today, the prosecution and defence barristers summed-up the case before the judge sent out the jury, made up of seven women and five men, to consider their verdict.