Thorpe Jury: Second Day Of Deliberation (Press, 22 June 1979)

On 22 June 1979, the jury in the high-profile trial of British politician Jeremy Thorpe continued deliberating whether he plotted to kill his former homosexual lover, Norman Scott. The jury, comprised of nine men and three women, had begun considering their verdicts on Wednesday, after a lengthy trial that had lasted 29 days. Despite spending six hours on their deliberations, they did not reach a verdict and returned to the Old Bailey court without any sign that a decision was near. Judge Sir Joseph Cantley had instructed the jury to take their time, indicating there was no rush. Thorpe, the 50-year-old former leader of the Liberal Party, is accused alongside three other men of conspiring to murder Scott, who has claimed they had a homosexual relationship in the early 1960s. Thorpe faces an additional charge of incitement to murder. Scott, a key prosecution witness, has alleged that a hired hitman attempted to kill him in 1975 but mistakenly shot dead his dog instead. All four defendants have denied the charges. In his summation, Judge Cantley expressed strong criticism of the prosecution's key witnesses, labelling Scott a "crook, parasite, and spineless neurotic." He also stated that the evidence against Thorpe was largely circumstantial. Until the jury's deliberation began, Thorpe and his co-defendants had been free on bail, but standard British legal practice led to their bail being cancelled at that stage of the trial. Consequently, instead of exiting the courtroom as he typically had, Thorpe was taken down to the cells of the Old Bailey. The judge took precautions to keep the jury insulated from external influences, ordering that no media could report on Thorpe's incarceration, which might affect the jurors' deliberations. Although newspapers had sought to report this development during the trial, their requests were denied to maintain the integrity of the jury's process. As the jury's deliberation continues, the legal proceedings surrounding this notable case remain a subject of significant public and media attention.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand