The jury has been discharged in the trial of Ryan Giggs, but what does this mean and what comes next?
The former Manchester United footballer had been on trial for four weeks but the jury has failed to reach any verdicts.
After a total of 22 hours and 59 minutes of deliberating, the jurors were brought back into the courtroom on Wednesday at 3.04 pm.
The jury, which was comprised of seven women and four men, with one juror lost to illness during the process, failed to reach a majority decision.
What does 'jury discharged' mean amid Ryan Giggs's trial?
The jury first went out to consider verdicts late on the afternoon of August 23.
When they were brought back into the courtroom on Wednesday, Judge Hilary Manley asked if they had reached a verdict on any counts on which a majority of 10 to one had agreed.
The foreman of the jury answered: “No.”
Asked if there was any “realistic prospect” of them reaching verdicts if given more time, the foreman again answered: “No.”
Thanking the jurors, Judge Manley then discharged them.
The judge also warned them that they should not discuss the case as there may be another trial of the case in the future.
A judge can discharge a jury after extended deliberations have taken place and when there is no chance a majority or unanimous verdict can be reached.
What happens after a hung jury?
Following the lack of verdict, lawyers will now have to consider the public interest of a retrial.
Any further trial would only take place many months from now.
The Crown Prosecution Service will make the decision next week and if they do decide to seek a retrial, it would likely be held in June 2023.
Giggs, 48, had denied controlling or coercive behaviour over a three-year period towards his ex-girlfriend Kate Greville, 38.
He also denied “losing control” and headbutting her and assaulting Ms Greville’s sister, Emma, by elbowing her in the jaw, during a row at his home in Worsley, Greater Manchester on November 1, 2020.
Giggs was released on bail until a mention hearing on September 7.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel