Blunder by jury could see appeal in dog murder case

The question every jury is asked when returning a verdict is: "Is it unanimous?" Not a particularly complicated enquiry, but one which proved confusing for one Old Bailey foreman. On Thursday, the jury in the murder case of Chrisdian Johnson, the 22-year-old who used his dog to maul his victim before stabbing him to death, returned a unanimous verdict.

But as the news channels were reporting Johnson's conviction, a phone rang in the Old Bailey. One of the jurors had called the court to say the verdict was not unanimous.

Given that Judge Christopher Moss had not given the jurors permission to return a majority verdict, there was a question mark over whether the verdict could stand. And so yesterday, after a series of phone calls to get the jury back to court, Thursday's verdict was nullified and the jury was sent out again, this time with a majority direction, and told to reconvene. They returned less than an hour later with a majority verdict of 10-2.

The bizarre episode has led to suggestions that the confusion could open the door for Johnson's defence to appeal, not least because yesterday morning's newspapers carried potentially prejudicial reports of his guilt before he had technically been convicted.

Felicity Gerry, a criminal barrister, said: "The defendant's barrister will have to consider whether anything that occurred overnight could have influenced the jury." Professor Gary Slapper, an expert in criminal law, described the episode as "extraordinary and inexplicable". He added: "Unless the jury foreman was struck with amnesia or simply did not know what the word 'unanimous' meant, it is very difficult to understand why he answered yes to that question. The judge seems to have acted entirely properly." But it "raises the possibility of an appeal", he added.

After the proper verdict, Judge Moss sentenced Johnson to life with a minimum of 24 years for the murder of 16-year-old Seyi Ogunyemi. Johnson used his bull terrier Tyson to maul Seyi, before he stabbed the youth, who suffered from Crohn's disease and weighed just 7st. DNA taken from his dog matched to blood at the scene. It was the first time dog DNA had been used in a British court.