1. The term ‘unexplained verdict’ will be used throughout this paper to encapsulate the convention that jury verdicts are not accompanied by reasons. The phrase ‘unreasoned verdict’ is used in much of the literature, but the term ‘unexplained verdict’ is arguably clearer.

2. P Roberts ‘Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights require reasoned verdicts in criminal trials?’ (2011) 11(2) Human Rights Law Review 213 at 216. See also Exp Harrington [1884] TLR 435, where Stephen J stated that magistrates who had refused to grant a theatre licence ‘were no more bound to give their reasons … than a jury were bound to give reasons for their verdict’. Ibid, p 437.

3. ECtHR 13 January 2009 and (2012) 54 EHRR 26 (Grand Chamber). The Taxquet decision is discussed below.

4. In Scotland there is an additional verdict, namely ‘not proven’. See P Duff ‘The not proven verdict; jury mythology and “moral panics”’ (1996) Juridical Review 1. In 2016 the merits of this third verdict were debated in the Scottish media and the Scottish Parliament. See, for example ‘Bid to scrap “not proven” verdict from Scots courts fails’, available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35659541 (accessed 24 January 2017).

5. P Devlin Trial by Jury (London: Methuen, 1966) pp 13-14.

6. See eg, P Darbyshire ‘The lamp that shows that freedom lives - is it worth the candle?’ [1991] Crim LR 740 at 748; Frank, J Law and the Modern Mind (London: Stevens & Sons, 1949) pp 171–178 Google Scholar; Maher, G ‘The verdict of the jury’ in Findlay, M and Duff, P (eds) The Jury Under Attack (London: Butterworths, 1988) 40 at pp 44-5Google Scholar; RJ O'Hanlon ‘The sacred cow of trial by jury’ (1990) 27 Irish Jurist 57 at 66; ER Sunderland ‘Verdicts, general and special’ (1920) 29(3) Yale LJ 253 at 258-260; Williams, G The Proof of Guilt: A Study of the English Criminal Trial (London: Stevens & Sons, 2nd edn, 1958) p 278 Google Scholar.

7. Rv Larkin [1943] KB 174.

8. Ibid, p 176.

9. Williams, above n 6, p 277.

10. See further Klerman, D ‘Was the jury ever self-informing?’ in Mulholland, M and Pullan, B (eds) Judicial Tribunals in England and Europe, 1200-1700 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003) p 58 Google Scholar; M Macnair ‘Vicinage and the antecedents of the jury’ (1999) 17 (3) Law and History Review 537.

11. JD Jackson ‘Making juries accountable’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 477 at 490.

12. Ibid, p 529.

13. AS Goldstein ‘Jury secrecy and the media: the problem of post-verdict interviews’ (1993) University of Illinois Law Review 295 at 295.

14. For an overview of the harms and benefits of nullification see NS Marder ‘The myth of the nullifying jury’ (1999) 93 Northwestern University Law Review 877 at 926-943.

15. T Brooks ‘A defence of jury nullification’ (2004) 10(4) Res Publica 401 at 402.

16. [1922] 2 KB 113.

17. Ibid. p1 18.

18. Ibid, p 121. Warrington LJ agreed.

19. Ibid. Other, more dubious rationales for the secrecy rule include the need for finality in respect of verdicts and the preservation of confidence in the jury system. For a critique of these rationales, see Jaconelli, J Open Justice: A Critique of the Public Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) pp 235–262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and M McHugh ‘Jurors’ deliberations, jury secrecy, public policy and the law of contempt' in Findlay and Duff, above n 6, pp 56 and 62-67.

20. Allen, C The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) p 3 Google Scholar; JH Langbein ‘The criminal trial before the lawyers’ (1978) 45(2) University of Chicago Law Review 263 at 289.

21. Langbein, ibid, p 291.

22. Langbein, JH The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) p 321 Google Scholar.

23. Ibid, p 329.

24. Cottu, CM On the Administration of the Criminal Code, in England, and the Spirit of the English Government (London: The Lawbook Exchange, 1820) p 54 Google Scholar.

25. Langbein, above n 22, p 329.

26. [1884] 14 QBD 273.

27. (1984) 6 Cr App R (S) 120.

28. Ibid, p 126.

29. [2004] 1 AC 1118.

30. Ibid, p 1 166.

31. For an example of a rider in which a jury implied misconduct on the part of the police see ‘Sheffield bribery charges’ The Times (London, 5 April 1930).

32. R v Hardwicke (CA, 10 November 2000), para 10.

33. L Gregoriadis ‘Judge frees peer caught in tabloid drug sting’ The Guardian (London, 23 September 1999).

34. Hardwicke, above n 32, para 19.

35. [2008] SCL 543.

36. Ibid, p 553.

37. (1996) 2 Cr App Rep (S) 445.

38. Ibid, p 451.

39. [2004] 1 AC 1118.

40. Mirza contains an exception to this rule which permits the investigation of misconduct which is extraneous to the deliberations, but that exception is not relevant in the current context. For analysis of the Mirza decision, see N Haralambous ‘Investigating impropriety in jury deliberations: a recipe for disaster?’ (2004) 68(5) Journal of Criminal Law 411; R Ferguson ‘The criminal jury in England and Scotland: the confidentiality principle and the investigation of impropriety’ (2006) 10 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 180.

41. For examples of jury misconduct, see Attorney General v Fraill (2011) 2 Cr App Rep 21; Attorney General v Pardon [2012] EWHC 3402 (Admin); Attorney General v Dallas (2012) 1 Cr App R 32; Attorney General v Davey (2014) 1 Cr App R1. While jurors may be punished for such misconduct it is quite difficult to have a verdict set aside on the basis of alleged juror misbehaviour. See above, n 40.

42. See above, n 14 and n 15.

43. It is a general principle of good practice across many different fields of public law that decisions which adversely affect members of the public should always be accompanied by reasons. Although there is no general common law duty to give reasons in English administrative law (see R (on the application of Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2009] 3 All ER 539), such an obligation is widely found in statute and the common law has established many such individual duties: see generally P Craig ‘The common law, reasons and administrative justice’ (1994) 53(2) Cambridge Law Journal 282; M Cohen ‘Reason-giving in court practice: decision-makers at the crossroads’ (2007) 14 Columbia Journal of European Law 257. Under Art 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, all institutions are under an obligation to give reasons for all legal measures.

44. Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175 at 191.

45. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s 28(3).

46. Bail Act 1976, s 5(3)(a). In certain cases the granting of bail also carries a duty to provide reasons: s 5(2A).

47. In R v DPP, ex p Manning [2001] QB 330 it was held that while the Director of Public Prosecutions was not under a general duty to provide reasons for a decision not to prosecute, it was reasonable to do so where no compelling grounds suggested otherwise. In circumstances where an individual had died while in the custody of the State and a properly directed inquest had reached a verdict of unlawful killing, reasons should have been given for a decision not to prosecute.

48. Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 110.

49. Ibid, s 174 as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, s 64(2).

50. Criminal Appeals Act 1995, s 14(4).

51. Criminal Procedure Rule 24.3(5)(a).

52. For discussion of the jury secrecy rule see McHugh, above n 19; Jaconelli, above n 19.

53. J Jackson ‘Judicial responsibility in criminal proceedings’ (1996) 49 Current Legal Problems 59 at 90. See further T Brooks ‘The right to trial by jury’ (2004)21(2) Journal of Applied Philosophy 197; F Davis ‘The jury as a political institution in an age of counterterrorism’ (2013) 33(1) Politics 5; HL Ho ‘Liberalism and the Criminal Trial’ (2010) 32 Sydney Law Review 269.

54. New Zealand Law Commission Alternative Pre-Trial and Trial Processes: Possible Reforms (Issues Paper 30, 2012) 24.

55. Juries Act 1974, s 20D as inserted by s 74(1) Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

56. C Thomas Are Juries Fair? (London: Ministry of Justice, 2010).

57. C Thomas ‘Exposing the myth’ (2013) Counsel 25 at 26.

58. The quotation is taken from the views expressed by Professors Ellison and Munro to the Law Commission. Law Commission, Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications (2013) p 97.

59. Ibid, p 102.

60. See M Zelditch ‘Processes of legitimation: recent developments and new directions’ (2001) Social Psychology Quarterly 4.

61. Tyler, TR ‘Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law’ in Tonry, M (ed) Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 30 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2003) p 283 Google Scholar.

62. Roberts, J and Hough, M, Public Opinion and the Jury: An International Literature Review (London: Ministry of Justice Research Series 1/09, 2009) pp 12–19 Google Scholar.

63. Jackson, above n 11, pp 486-487.

64. The capacity of juries to try complex fraud cases has been an issue of controversy, for example. See Fraud Trials Committee Report (London: HMSO, 1986) paras 8.47-8.51; Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (London: HMSO, 1993) pp 136-137; Juries in Serious Fraud Trials: A Consultation Document (London: Home Office 1998); R Auld Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: HMSO, 2001) pp 200-204; RF Julian ‘Judicial perspectives on the conduct of serious fraud trials’ [2007] Crim LR 751. Section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which was repealed by s 113 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, would have permitted the prosecution to apply for a trial without a jury in fraud trials.

65. See for example ‘Inquiry into “use of ouija board” by Jurors’ The Independent (24 June 1994); U Khan ‘Juror dismissed from a trial after using facebook to help make a decision’ The Daily Telegraph (24 November 2008); J Taylor ‘Juror jailed for contempt after jetting off to Malta’ The Independent (5 April 2011); A Hough ‘Juror in facebook contempt prosecution after “contacting defendant during trial”’ The Daily Telegraph (13 June 2011); ‘Juror, 19, jailed for halting trial to visit theatre’ The Guardian (22 December 2011); O Bowcott ‘Juror jailed over online research’ The Guardian (24 January 2012). See further C Thomas ‘Avoiding the perfect storm of juror contempt’ [2013] Crim LR 483.

66. See Law Commission, above n 58, and Part 3 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

67. The jury was discharged after failing to agree a verdict. The trial judge stated that the questions asked by the jurors demonstrated ‘absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding’: F Hamilton ‘Pryce trial collapses amid doubt over jury’ The Times (21 February 2013). The case led to considerable debate in the national media. See for example, R Sabey ‘Pryce retrial after jury farce’ The Sun (21 February 2013); M Phillips ‘Do we need IQ tests for juries? Vicky Pryce trial has exposed a breathtaking level of ignorance and stupidity’ The Daily Mail (21 February 2013); E Branagh ‘Stupid jurors cause Vicky Pryce retrial’ The Daily Star (21 February 2013). For an academic perspective, see S Lubet and K Chang ‘Stupid juror questions?’ (2014) 37 American Journal of Trial Advocacy 315.

68. Law Commission, above n 58; Jackson, J ‘Unbecoming jurors and unreasoned verdicts: realising integrity in the jury room’ in Dixon, D, Hunter, J, Roberts, P and Young, S (eds) Integrity in Criminal Process (Oxford: Hart, 2016) p 281 Google Scholar.

69. Examples of a relaxation in evidentiary controls are contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provided for a major erosion of the rule against hearsay and the more widespread admissibility of character evidence.

70. Jackson ‘Unbecoming jurors’, above n 68, p 301.

71. Ibid.

72. While defendants might well be the primary beneficiaries of explained verdicts, it is arguable that victims ought to be able to exercise a similar ‘right to know’ or ‘right to truth’ within the criminal justice system. This would be a reflection of wider trends concerning the expansion of victims' rights in human rights and transitional justice settings and arguably builds on the ‘right to information’ contained in Arts 3-7 of European Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. See further J Doak ‘Enriching trial justice for victims of crime: lessons from transitional environments’ (2015) 15(2) International Review of Victimology 139-160.

73. M Coen ‘“With cat-like tread”: jury trial and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2014) Human Rights Law Review 1 at 16; J Jackson and NP Kovalev ‘Lay adjudication and human rights in Europe’ (2006) 13 Columbia J. of European Law 83 at 115-116.

74. (1996) 22 EHRR 29.

75. Ibid, p 62.

76. R v PAR [2001] EWCA Crim 1060, para 33. For another reference to the unexplained verdict in an appeal relating to such a verdict, see R v George [2005] EWCA Crim 1095, para 59 (Hooper LJ).

77. Mirza, above n 39, p 1133.

78. Ibid.

79. R v P [2009] EWCA Crim 2732, para 17 (Elias LJ).

80. R v Lewis (Rhys Thomas) [2010] EWCA Crim 496, para 47 (Moore-Bick LJ).

81. ECtHR 13 January 2009 and (2012) 54 EHRR 26 (Grand Chamber).

82. ECtHR 13 January 2009, para 63.

83. See Saric v Denmark (ECtHR, 2 February 1999); Papon v France (ECtHR, 15 November 2001).

84. For a discussion of the diverse jury systems present in the States Party to the European Convention on Human Rights, see Jackson and Kovalev, above n 73, pp 93-100.

85. ECtHR, 13 January 2009, paras 71-82.

86. (2012) 54 EHRR 26 at 956.

87. Ibid, pp 956-957.

88. Ibid, pp 957-958.

89. ECtHR, 2 February 1999.

90. Coen, above n 73, p 19.

91. RL Lippke ‘The case for reasoned criminal trial verdicts’ (2009) 22(2) Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 313 at 318 (emphasis added).

92. N Madge ‘Summing up: a judge's perspective’ [2006] Crim LR 817 at 821-822. Judges are expressly empowered under the Criminal Procedure Rules 2014 to give directions and questions in writing: Crim PR r 38.14(3).

93. Auld, above n 64, p 172.

94. Judicial Studies Board, Crown Court Bench Book: Directing the Jury (2010).

95. Thomas, above n 65, p 497.

96. R v Thompson (2010) 2 Cr App Rep 27 at 267.

97. Judicial College The Crown Court Compendium Part 1: Legal Summaries, Directions and Examples (2016), available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-court-compendium-pt1-legal-summaries-directions-examples-20160511.pdf (accessed 24 January 2017), pp 1-7-1-9.

98. The Criminal Practice Directions 2015 Amendment No 1 [2016] EWCA Crim 97 states: ‘Save where the case is so straightforward that it would be superfluous to do so, the judge should provide a written route to verdict. It may be presented (on paper or digitally) in the form of text, bullet points, a flowchart or other graphic'.

99. B Leveson Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings (2015), available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/review-of-efficiency-in-criminal-proceedings-20151.pdf (accessed 24 January 2017).

100. Ibid, p 79.

101. New Zealand Law Commission, above n 54, p 26.

102. Roberts and Hough, above n 62, pp 12-23.

103. While s 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 expressly prohibits recording in court precincts in England and Wales, the secrecy rule can be traced back to the eighteenth century. See J Hunter ‘Jury deliberations and the secrecy rule: the tail that wags the dog?’ (2013) 35 Sydney Law Review 809.

104. The project appeared in print as Kalven, H and Zeisel, H The American Jury (Boston: Little, Brown and Co, 1966)Google Scholar

105. See Kassin, S and Wrightsman, L The American Jury on Trial: Psychological Perspectives (New York: Hemisphere, 1988) pp 13–14 Google Scholar; SS Diamond and N Vidmar'Jury room ruminations on forbidden topics’ (2001) 87(8) Virginia Law Review 1857 at 1867.

106. See WR Bagley ‘Jury room secrecy: has the time come to unlock the door?’ (1999) 32 Suffolk University Law Review 481 at 486-88.

107. See T Lewis ‘Toward a limited right of access to jury deliberations’ (2006) 58 Federal Communications Law Journal 195 at 207-211; CH Ruprecht ‘Are verdicts, too, like sausages?: lifting the cloak of jury secrecy’ (1997) 146 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 217 at 241-250.

108. See P Robertshaw ‘For auld lang syne - towards the demise of the jury’ (2002) 66(4) J of Criminal Law 338 at 351-352. The recording of deliberations to facilitate the investigation of misconduct has been suggested by other commentators also. See Ferguson, above n 40, pp 207-208.

109. See for exmple, E Brickman, J Blackman, R Futterman and J Dinnerstein ‘How juror internet use has changed the American jury trial’ (2008) 1(2) Journal of Court Innovation 287; N Haralambous ‘Educating jurors: technology, the internet and the jury system’ (2010) 19(3) Information and Communications Technology Law 255. See also Thomas ‘Avoiding’, above n 65.

110. Jackson and Kovalev, above n 73, pp 94-95.

111. Bohlander, M. Principles of German Criminal Procedure (Oxford: Hart, 2012) p. 50 Google Scholar.

112. Ibid. A sample judgment is contained in Annex 2 of Professor Bohlander's book, p 290.

113. Jackson and Kovalev, above n 73, p 97.The authors note that while the total number of judges may vary, the number of lay judges must always exceed the number of professional judges by one.

114. VP Hans and CM Germain ‘The French jury at a crossroads’ (2011) 86 Chicago-Kent Law Review 737 at 756-757.

115. See J Oldham ‘Special juries in England: nineteenth century usage and reform’ (1987) 8(2) Journal of Legal History 148.

116. Auld, above n 64, pp 213-214. This suggestion was not acted upon by Parliament.

117. JE Dudzinski ‘Justification for juries: a comparative perspective on models of jury composition’ (2013) University of Illinois Law Review 1625 at 1639.

118. It is also possible, however, that an overly legalistic approach to drafting reasons could actually serve to render the verdict more obscure and less accessible to the wider public.

119. P Fitzpatrick ‘The British jury: an argument for the reconstruction of the little parliament’ (2010) 6 Cambridge Student Law Review 1 at 11.

120. NP Kovalev ‘Lay adjudication of crimes in the Commonwealth of Independent States: an independent and impartial jury or a “court of nodders?”’ (2004) 11(2/3) Journal of East European Law 123.

121. SK Ivkovic ‘Exploring lay participation in legal decision-making: lessons from mixed tribunals’ (2007) 40(2) Cornell International Law Journal 429 at 440-43.

122. VP Hans ‘Jury systems around the world’ (2008) 4 Annual Review of Law and Social Science 275 at 290.

123. C Murdoch ‘The oath and the internet’ (2012) 176 (11) Criminal Law and Justice Weekly 149.

124. For an overview see P McLaverty ‘Is deliberative democracy the answer to representative democracy's problems? A consideration of the UK government's programme of citizen juries’ (2009) 45(4) Representation 379; A Coote and J Lenaghan Citizens' juries: theory into practice (London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 1997).

125. Gastil, J, Deess, PE, Weiser, PJ and Simmons, C The Jury and Democracy: How Jury Deliberation Promotes Civic Engagement and Political Participation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p 180 Google Scholar.

126. Department of Enterprise, Transport and the Regions, Modernising Local Government: Local Democracy and Community Leadership (London: HMSO, 1998), para 4.12.

127. G Smith and C Wales ‘Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy (2000) 48(1) Political Studies 51 at 59. There has been criticism that the conclusions of citizens' juries are sometimes not made publicly available: McLaverty, above n 124, p 382.

128. L Carson and R Lubensky ‘Citizens' juries pave the way to the law courts’ (2008) 33(1) Alternative Law Journal 10 at 11.

129. Hans, VP and Vidmar, N Judging the Jury (New York: Perseus Publishing, 1986) p 102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In an English study which interviewed people who had experienced jury service 67% of them stated that jurors should be given more information about how to conduct deliberations: Thomas, above n 56, p 39. This finding was discussed by Lord Judge in R v Thompson (2010) 2 Cr App Rep 27 at 266.

130. See DJ Devine, LD Clayton, BB Dunford, R Seying, and J Pryce ‘Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups’ (2001) 7(3) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 622 at 697; L Ellison and V Munro ‘Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors’ deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape yrial' (2010) 30(1) Legal Studies 74 at 88-89; SS Diamond and JD Casper ‘Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: damages, experts, and the civil jury’ (1992) 26 Law and Society Review 513 at 547.

131. Devine et al, ibid, p 696; Hastie, R, Penrod, S and Pennington, N Inside the Jury (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2002) p 28 Google Scholar.

132. SS Diamond, N Vidmar, M Rose and L Ellis ‘Inside the jury room - evaluating juror discussions during trial’ (2003) 87 Judicature 54; SS Diamond, B Murphy and M Rose ‘Kettleful of law in real jury deliberations: successes, failures, and next steps’ (2012) 106 Northwestern University Law Review 1537; J Gastil, S Burkhalter and LW Black ‘Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group satisfaction at a municipal courthouse’ (2007) 38 Small Group Research 337.

133. JD Devine, J Buddenbaum, S Houp, DP Stolle and N Studebaker ‘Deliberation quality: a preliminary examination in criminal juries’ (2007) 4(2) Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 273 at 288.

134. J Gastil Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision Making, and Communication (Gabriola Island: New Society, 1993) p 22.

135. See further, KN Dillard ‘Envisioning the role of facilitation in public deliberation’ (2013) 41(3) Journal of Applied Communications Research 217.

136. Devine et al ‘Jury Decision Making', above n 130, p 707.

137. See further, S Shelton ‘Jury decision making: using group theory to improve deliberation’ (2006) 34(4) Politics and Policy 706.

138. P Darbyshire, A Maughan and A Stewart What Can the English Legal System Learn from Jury Research Published up to 2001 ? (London: Kingston Business School/Kingston Law School, Kingston University, 2002) p 25. See also Thomas, above n 56, who found that two-thirds of jurors surveyed stated that they would have liked more information on conducting deliberations (p 39).

139. See further, DH Mitchell and D Eckstein ‘Jury dynamics and decision-making: a prescription for groupthink’ (2009) 1(1) International J. of Academic Research 163.

140. It is also possible that a particular juror, group of jurors or the accused, could intimidate the facilitator. However, comprehensive training, along with an appropriate oversight mechanism, could help to offset this risk.

141. Braithwaite, J Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p 145 Google Scholar.

142. J Braithwaite ‘Setting standards for restorative justice’ (2002) 42(3) British Journal of Criminology 563 at 574.

143. Volunteers are already widely used by the Witness Service across England and Wales (see further Mawby, R ‘Public sector services and the victim of crime’ in Walklate, S (ed), Handbook of Victims and Victimology (Cullompton: Willan, 2007) p 209 Google Scholar. Many mediation and restorative justice schemes across continental Europe also rely heavily on volunteer facilitators. See Dünkel, F, Horsfield, P and Parosanu, A (eds) European Research on Restorative Juvenile Justice: Volume I Research and Selection of the Most Effective Juvenile Restorative Justice Practices in Europe: Snapshots from 28 EU Member States (Brussels: International Juvenile Justice Observatory, 2015)Google Scholar.

144. [1915] 2 KB 674.

145. Jackson ‘Making Jurors Accountable’, above n 11, p 523.

146. Z Bankowski ‘The Jury and Reality’ in Findlay and Duff, above n 6, p 20.

147. Lippke, above n 91, p 316.

148. Jackson ‘Unbecoming jurors’, above n 68, p 301.

149. Auld, above n 64, p 168.

150. Ibid. p 537.

151. See further M Csere ‘Reasoned criminal verdicts in the Netherlands and Spain: implications for juries in the United States’ (2013) 12 Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 415 at 434; Jackson, above n 11, pp 520-522.

152. On these and other potential drawbacks of explained verdicts, see Lippke, above n 91, pp 323-330.

153. Devlin, above n 5, p 57.