Urewera jury reach verdict

One Juror disagreed with the verdict with the 10 others? Curious!

The jury in the trial of the “Urewera four” have reached a verdict, which will be delivered shortly.

The jury took nearly 20 hours to come to a decision, after having a three-day break from deliberations because one of the jurors was injured on Friday.

Tame Iti, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, Urs Signer and Emily Bailey were charged with illegal possession of firearms and participation in an organised criminal group. They pleaded not guilty.

This afternoon, the jury advised Justice Rodney Hansen this afternoon that they have reached verdicts on the firearms charges in the case, but have been unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the charge of participating in an organised criminal group.

Read more

6 thoughts on “Urewera jury reach verdict

  1. How do you know it was only one juror who caused the divided jury, given that those numbers are never released to the public? Have you got some sort of inside knowledge?

    • Hi John,

      The initial news was that there was only one juror opposing the others but in later breaking news it was established that it was a hung jury which would indicate that it would be more like fifty-fifty. I’m not sure if the entire jury has to agree on a verdict as severe as belonging to a criminal organisation. In Holland we don’t have a jury system.
      And no I don’t have insider information on this

      • A majority verdict would’ve required 10 of the 11 jurors agreeing that the Crown had a case. A single abstention from one juror would thus have had no effect – a conviction would have ensued anyway. A hung jury could thus be a ratio of 9:2 to 2:9 or anywhere in between.

        I’m surprised any reporters covering the case would have made such an error – have you got a source for the initial news that reported the “one dissenting juror” story?

        • If I remember correctly and I usually link to sources it was a link posted on facebook. It was one of those breaking news kind of links which gets edited and reposted with the same link so you can’t find it back. Interesting though something like this would slip through?

          • Contradicting my own earlier comment, I’m no longer surprised by the ineptitude and lack of legal understanding of many of the reporters (and other interested parties) covering this case.

  2. I love how they have a little clip of ‘footage’ to the right of the article to sway the audience.
    Disgusted at the reporing from Fairfax media on this. Non wonder people are quickly turning to internet media broadcasts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s