Categories
Law Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty ?

Can a Judge Direct a Jury to Find a Defendant Not Guilty

In England and Wales, a judge in a crown court trial can decide on their own or direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty in specific circumstances, primarily when there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction. This is known as a directed acquittal.

Legal Basis and Crown Court Procedure

Pre-Trial Dismissal

Under Section 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (for serious or complex fraud cases) or Schedule 3 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (for other indictable offenses), the judge reviews written evidence and submissions without a hearing and may dismiss the charges, resulting in an acquittal.

The judge acts alone, without a jury, and the acquittal is formally recorded, barring further prosecution for the same offense (subject to the double jeopardy rule).

During Trial

A judge can direct an acquittal under Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 if, after the prosecution presents its case, the judge finds “no case to answer” because the evidence is so weak that no reasonable jury could convict. This often follows a defense submission at the close of the prosecution’s case.

  • The judge assesses whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to properly convict. If it’s deemed insufficient (e.g., lacks key elements of the offense or is unreliable), the judge can direct the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
  • This is often seen in cases where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie case or the evidence is legally inadmissible or too weak.
Abuse of Process

A judge may also dismiss a case if continuing it would be an abuse of process (e.g., due to unfairness or procedural irregularities), leading to a stay or acquittal.

Key Case Law

The test for a directed acquittal is based on R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, which sets out that a case should be stopped if:

  1. There is no evidence that the defendant committed the offense, or
  2. The prosecution’s evidence is so tenuous or inconsistent that a conviction would be unsafe.

Judge’s Role

The judge cannot direct a not guilty verdict simply because they personally believe the defendant is innocent. The decision must be based on the legal sufficiency of the evidence. If there’s enough evidence for a jury to consider, the case proceeds, and the jury decides the verdict.

Limitations

A judge cannot direct a jury to find a defendant guilty, as this would infringe on the jury’s role as the arbiter of facts (R v Wang [2005] UKHL 9).

  • Directed acquittals are rare and typically occur in clear-cut cases of evidential deficiency.

In summary, a judge in England and Wales can direct a jury to find a defendant not guilty if the prosecution’s case is legally insufficient, but this is a procedural safeguard rather than a subjective judgment on guilt or innocence.

What about a Magistrate ?

In England and Wales, a magistrate (or magistrates, as they often sit in panels of 3 in magistrates’ courts), or district judge does not direct a jury in the same way a judge does in a Crown Court, as magistrates’ courts do not have juries.

Instead, magistrates act as both the trier of law and fact in summary trials (less serious offenses). However, the concept of a directed acquittal or dismissing a case due to insufficient evidence still applies in magistrates’ courts, adapted to their context. Here’s a concise explanation:

Magistrates’ Role in Dismissing a Case

Magistrates or District Judge can dismiss a case if they find there is no case to answer, similar to a directed acquittal in a Crown Court. This happens when the prosecution’s evidence, at the close of their case, is insufficient for a conviction.

  • The defense may make a submission of no case to answer, arguing that the prosecution has failed to present enough evidence to prove the offense. The magistrates or District Judge then assess whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed.

Magistrate Legal Test

The same principles from R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 apply:

  1. If there is no evidence that the defendant committed the offense, the case must be dismissed.
  2. If the evidence is so weak, inconsistent, or unreliable that a conviction would be unsafe, the magistrates or district judge can stop the case.

Magistrates Court Procedure

In a magistrates’ court, if the prosecution’s case is deemed insufficient after their evidence is presented, the magistrates can dismiss the case without requiring the defense to present their case.

  • This is effectively equivalent to a judge directing a not guilty verdict in a Crown Court, but since magistrates or district judge are the decision-makers, they simply dismiss the case or acquit the defendant directly.

Key Differences from Crown Court

There is no jury in magistrates’ court cases, so magistrates do not “direct” a jury. They decide the outcome themselves.

  • Magistrates’ courts handle less serious offenses, so the threshold for dismissing a case may be applied more frequently due to simpler evidential issues.
  • Cases in a magistrates court are heard by either three magistrates or a district judge. 

Magistrate and District Judge Limitations

Like Crown Court judges, magistrates cannot dismiss a case based on their personal belief in the defendant’s innocence. The decision must be based on the legal insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.

  • If the evidence is sufficient to proceed, magistrates will hear the defense’s case and make a final decision on guilt or innocence.

In summary, a magistrate or district judge in England and Wales can effectively “direct” a not guilty outcome by dismissing a case or acquitting a defendant if the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient, following the same legal principles as in a directed acquittal in a Crown Court.

Check out our related articles on What is a Jury ?, What is a Hung Jury ?, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Is the Law Black and White ?, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, Law Society, Law Commission, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, Contra Mundum, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 23rd June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent