What’s the point in having a jury if they are going to be told what to say?
A judge in the UK can't tell a jury to deliver a guilty verdict, only a not guilty one (Wang, 2005).
In the past, that wasn't true. A judge could tell a jury to deliver a guilty verdict if it was absolutely clear that the defendant was guilty. But the jury doesn't have to do it. Juries retain the right to deliver their own verdict, regardless of what a judge says. Clive Ponting is a famous example. He absolutely, definitely and without question was guilty of the charge. No doubt about it. The evidence was overwhelming and he freely admitted it. The judge directed the jury to deliver a guilty verdict and the jury refused and declared Ponting not guilty instead even though he was guilty and all the jury knew he was guilty. The jury decided that the law was wrong. Juries have a great deal of power.
A judge telling the jury to deliver a not guilty verdict is essentially the judge saying that a guilty verdict would be legally wrong and would definitely be quashed on appeal. Once a trial by jury has started, a jury verdict is required. The case can't be dismissed by the judge, regardless of how badly it has collapsed. Even if, for example, the defendant was accused of stealing something and it was discovered partway through the trial that the thing hadn't been stolen at all and had just slipped between the cushions of a sofa and the defendant was on the moon at the time anyway, a jury verdict would still be required.
In this case, the murder charge ceased to exist. The prosecution withdrew the murder charge. But the jury could have convicted her of murder anyway, if they wanted to, regardless of what the judge said. That would have just been a waste of the time and money needed for an appeal, but they could have done it.
