The retrial
Last week we considered the differences in majority verdicts between this country and other jurisdictions. In the context of that it is important to understand what a retrial is and how it may occur.
In a sense the point is simple. A retrial is a fresh start. However, not a completely fresh start. There are of course records of what was previously stated. That is evidence given on oath. Therefore someone at a retrial who gives a completely different version of events (as opposed to perhaps a variation of emphasis, or filling in missing details) will have some explaining to do.(and if they admit lying on oath, or it is clear that they have done, they can face a perjury charge and possible prison sentence just regarding that).
Although there is provision for majority verdicts in this country, that does not mean that there will not be a hung jury. You still need at least 10 jurors in favour of a verdict. Therefore if the jury cannot reach agreement, then the trial will have to take place again. That is unless either the defendant pleads guilty (which will be most unusual having run a trial and not been convicted) or if the prosecution decides to offer no evidence so that a formal not guilty verdict is recorded.
What course the prosecution takes depends upon what they see as being in the public interest. If it is a serious charge then they will usually press for a retrial, which they are entitled to. In some cases, whether because it does not seem worthwhile or whether because getting prosecution witnesses to testify for a second time will be problematical, no evidence is offered. That is the usual, if not invariable, course where the jury fails to agree on the retrial. The general view is that if the case is such that a jury cannot agree on a verdict in two successive trials that there is no point in going for a third hearing.
Retrials can also take place when for some reason a trial has to be abandoned part way through. They can also occur as a result of an appeal, whether in a civil or criminal case. Although many appeals will be resolved on the appeal itself, there are occasions where due to some fault in the trial process the proper course is to make the trial go ahead again (if that can be fairly done).
Most barristers do not like retrials (although obviously they are preferable to losing the case since at least you get another chance!). It is particularly galling if a difficult case has gone as well as you could reasonably expect it to and you feel you were close to getting the verdict that you wanted. If you know that things are unlikely to go quite as well at a second trial it is very dispiriting to think you have nearly made it, but that it will probably all count for nothing. I recall one barrister telling me how he had defended a difficult rape case, the cross-examination had gone well, and he felt the defendant would be acquitted. The jury could not agree and so there was a retrial which went nothing like as well, and the defendant was fairly swiftly convicted. (Presumably the prosecution and the complainant were heartily relieved, which just goes to show that perspective on a retrial can differ: they probably felt that they had almost let a very good case slip away).