The Lawyer Africa Elite 2014 features an in-depth look at 46 leading independent firms’ strategies in 15 key sub-Saharan jurisdictions, as well as the views of in-house counsel from some of Africa’s largest companies... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
R v Aylott (1996). CA (Pill LJ, Curtis J and Judge Clarke).
Summary: Taking a jury's verdict after they have been discharged.
Appeal against murder conviction where the appellant had been indicted with a co-defendant. After retirement the jury sent a note to the judge stating they were split equally on their verdict in relation to the appellant's co-defendant. The judge misunderstood the note and taking that it meant they were split equally in relation to both defendants, discharged the jury. He then learned that the jury had reached a unanimous verdict in respect of the appellant and were only split as to returning a manslaughter verdict on the appellant's co-defendant. As the jury had not spoken to any member of the public they were brought back into court and their verdict was taken, the appellant being convicted and the co-defendant being acquitted of murder. The appellant argued that after discharging the jury no verdict could be taken from them.