Kerre Woodham: Lauren Dickason's trial leaves us with more questions than answers

Yesterday the jury in the Lauren Dickason trial reached its verdict.

They'd been deliberating since early afternoon on Monday, and they reached a majority verdict, which is a verdict agreed to by all, except one juror and can only occur if the foreperson states an open court there is no probability of the jury reaching a unanimous verdict.

It’s a case that really did shock the country, I think. I don't think that's an overstatement.

Dickason never denied killing her children. 6 year old Liane, 2 year old twins Maya and Karla, in September 2021. But she pleaded not guilty to murder, claiming she was suffering such severe mental distress that she could not be held criminally responsible for her actions.  

I really feel for the jury in this trial.

It must have been gruelling sitting there listening day in, day out to the details of such a dreadful case and the judge made mention of that when he discharged them.

There's talk of an appeal, but as it stands, Dickason will face a life sentence for the murder of each child.

There are so many questions and issues that arise from this case, that are greater than this case as well.

First of all, Dickerson is not remanded in custody in prison. Instead, she's under a compulsory treatment order at Hillmorton Hospital, where she has been since the days after the murders.  

The judge who presided over the case, Justice Mander, is seeking expert reports on her mental state and to help him decide what sentence would be appropriate for her.  

Should the case have been heard in front of a judge alone, given the expert testimony upon which both the Crown and defence relied so heavily, both diametrically opposed to one another too?

Are our laws still fit for purpose? Chris Gallivan in the interview with Mike this morning says our laws are a dog's breakfast around murder. Should we have degrees of murder?

To understand that not all murders are committed with the same forethought with the same set of circumstances.

And then, the question of how anyone can be allowed to endure 17 rounds of IVF?

 I know of women who've undergone two rounds and found it physically and psychologically gruelling.  

Do we need to have a rethink about how we select jurors? Do we have a panel of professional jurors?

This is something that's been talked about before, too, as have degrees of murder.

So many questions after this case has come to an end, if indeed it has, there may well be an appeal, because that's certainly what the defence lawyers indicated.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.