Juries: Scotland and England Flashcards

Question

R v M 2004

Answer 1

FACTS - M convicted at Crown Court by majority of 10-2 - Complaint was made by M's daughter of sexual assualt APPEAL - Juror wrote letter to judge stating another juror had stated she had the appellant as guilty from day 1 of the trial as she was trained to deal with sex offenders from her previous employment - No further investigations were made by the court such an investigation would be complex and it would be difficult to investigate without intruding on forbidden ground of what is said in the jury room between jurors - Court stated they must take letter from juror at face value - The appeal was made that the defence would have challenged the juror had they known she worked for social services, in an area where she may be familiar with either the appellant or his family HELD - Court dismissed the appeal - The court held there to be no reason to assume the juror had done anything other than be loyal to her oath and had she known the appellant she would have stepped forward at outset of the trial -The court asked the question as to whether the is any reason to say the knowledge and experience of this juror was so particular and unreasonable that someone holding it should not be present in the jury room at all and their answer was that the juror may have simply had a better understanding of the case because of her past employment - The court further found that any investigation they may conduct would conflict with the juror’s own though process which conflicted with the guidance of the HOL decision in R v Mirza - Secrecy rule extended to prohibit court from asking individual jurors who may appear to have been bias whether they had acted on any prejudice they may have add

Answer 2

FACTS - First case related to an Asian man who needed an interpreter during his trial - The jury sent two notes to the judge questioning the use of an interpreter - The jury was advised by both the prosecution and the defence that they should not draw adverse inferences from the use of an interpreter, a point reiterated by the judge in his summing up - The defendant was convicted and subsequent to this a juror sent a letter stating some jurors had been racially prejudiced against the defendant - Second case related to two defendant charged with wounding to intent - Both defendants denied inflicting the injury and at the central issue at trial related to who had possession of the weapon and its use - Both were found guilty but a juror wrote to the judge stating that the jury had convicted both men to save time - COA dismissed appeals by the appellants on the grounds that allegations raised by the juror were not admissible in respect of s.8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 HOL HELD - Evidence of this type in both cases must always be excluded - After the verdict things said by jurors intrinsic to their deliberations were inadmissible - If the impartiality was raised before the verdict was delivered the court may investigate unimpeded by s.8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act

Answer 3

FACTS - S (Appellant) appealed against decision that he was guilty go contempt of court within the meaning of s.8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 - the appellant was a juror on a trial in which he was the sole dissenting juror, he sent a letter to the mother of the defendant urging her to consider an appeal - The juror had deliberately disclosed statements, opinions, arguments and votes of jurors and had done so with the intention of proving there had been a miscarriage of justice - Had the juror disclosed what was said during deliberations to the court, or indirectly to the court, with the intention of prompting an investigation was not in contempt of court - The fact the juror contacted a third party with no authority to receive such disclosures on behalf of the court she appellant was in contempt of court

Answer 4

FACTS - After jury began deliberations the trial judge received a letter from a juror alleging that certain jurors were disregarding the judge's direction in law, indulging in speculation and improper bargaining over verdicts - The judge decided after consulting counsel to give further direction rather than discharging the jury APPEAL - On appeal the appellant argued that the judge was obliged to question members of the jury about the letter - Absence of questions meant judge had to assume truth of letter , with the result that further directions were not sufficient and jury ought to be discharged HELD - Appeals allowed - Judge correct to assume authenticity of letter - Not appropriate for judge to question jurors about letter as he would likely have had to question about deliberations - Judge had the right to exercise discretion by either discharging jury or giving further direction - The further directions must be apposite, clear and emphatic as the situation requires - in this case the judge fell short of that threshold and it could not be said that the jury discussion afterwards would be done in a proper manner

Answer 5

FACTS - Juror alleged during deliberations that two jurors were being prejudiced towards the defendant and were not judging the case on its evidence - the judge asked the jury to consider whether their collective ability to give an impartial verdict had been compromised - Jury rejected allegation and said nothing discriminatory or prejudiced had been said - Judge refused applications to discharge any jurors APPEAL - Appellant alleged that the judge had approached the alleged impropriety wrongly HELD - Judge has discretion to discharge any member of the jury, but to do so, a judge must ask the question as to whether the impropriety had occurred and if so whether it was irremediable - The judge in this case had taken steps to discover whether any irregularities had occurred and he was not obliged to interview each juror individual

Answer 6

FACTS - Four accused persons appealed against conviction of assault on the ground that the jury foreman (C) had caused a miscarriage of justice as he knew one of the accused (M) - Throughout school there had been ill will between M and G who was C's son HELD - Appeals allowed - C quite obviously knew M personally and of the connection between G and M constituted a clear ground for disqualification which C had been obliged to disclose - The verdict lacked impartiality as C knew one of the the accused had already committed a serious assault and a fair minded observe would likely conclude C would likely be hostile to M as well as the other accused persons - The entire verdict was rendered impartial

Answer 7

FACTS - P had been a member of a planning committee of Tayside RC, who was convicting of soliciting money from M, a partner in the firm - P appealed unsuccessfully, contending that a miscarriage of justice had occurred through an employee of M's being present on the jury - The employee's place on the jury was not challenged despite it being brought to the trial clerk of court's attention APPEAL - Appeal to the ECtHR on the grounds that the appellants right to a fair and impartial tribunal had been breached HELD - Complaint was dismissed - Subjectively the court will hold a presumption of impartiality, that no jurors are bias or prejudiced and there was no justification to deviate from that presumption - P's concerns could not be objectively justified as the juror was a junior employee who was recently informed of redundancy and on these facts it is by no means clear to an objective observer that then juror would have been more inclined to favour prosecution evidence over defence - Further safeguards were in place such as random jury selection and judge's directions and therefore no basis by which the court's impartiality could be called into question

Answer 8

FACTS - X convicted of murder APPEAL - X appealed after a juror allegedly inspected the locus contrary to the judge's directions - X submitted that the purpose of the juror's visit was to ingather evidence and see the layout HELD - Appeal dismissed - It had not been shown that the juror had actually inspected the locus, and even by visiting the locus it was not shown he had done anything improper - the visit would only be an impropriety if it deprived the accused of a fair trial which could not be said to be the case as the locus was a public place well known to the juror and was visible to any juror passing to and from court

Answer 9

FACTS - Two accused (G) were convicted of murder standing trial with three other convicted of a lesser crime - G alleged a miscarriage of justice had arisen as during the trial one of the jurors had viewed the locus whilst in the general area for reasons connected with his employment - That juror proceeded to tell other jurors about the visit - Furthermore the brohter of one of the co-accused (X) had been having intimate relations with two female jurors who were convicted of culpable homicide APPEAL - G submitted that the locus visit should be regarded as a juror who had taken evidence outwith the presence of the accused or that he acquired knowledge outwith the scope of the trial HELD - Appeals dismissed - Juror visit to locus not result in miscarriage of justice as it was a common public place and many crimes happen in common places - The visit had been disclosed to the trial judge who directed jury to only consider evidence heard in court - In respect of the intimate relations the court accpeted that had this information came to light during the trial it would have been necessary to discharge the jurors or desert pro loco tempore - Despite that fact it could not be said that the two female jurors would in any way be bias towards G in this instance just because they may have been inclined to act more favourably toward the other co-accused

Answer 10

FACTS - Judge informed that member of the jury had had disclosed to other jurors that she knew the accused to be a shop lifter - The judge made an inquiry in open court to which the forewoman confirmed the disclosure was made after the verdict was reached - The juror made herself known and the sheriff questioned her as to whether her decision was solely based on evidence led in court to which she replied it was - the verdict was returned and the accused convicted - Defence counsel appealed on the grounds the verdict was tainted HELD - Appeal allowed and conviction quashed - The allegation made was capable of causing the accused and any objective observer to hold legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the court - The doubt was objectively justified and the action taken by the sheriff was no as such to give sufficient guarantees excluding such doubts

Answer 11

FACTS - Appeal lodged by appellant on grounds that a juror at the trial had made statements in public of an intention to find the accused guilty HELD - The court held that before an inquiry could be ordered it must be satisfied that evidence of the allegation was substantial, convincing and trustworthy to warrant an inquiry - In this instance the evidence was not sufficient to warrant an inquiry - No evidence to establish that the juror's statements were translated in to effective action in the jury room

Answer 12

- jury refusing to deliberate at all but deciding the case another way would be conduct that amounted to a repudiatory breach of their only function. 'o give a true verdict according to the evidence' - A trial in which a verdict is determined by the tossing of a coin or consulting of a ouija board is no trial at all - If that is what happened, the jurors have no need to be protected as the verdict was not reached by deliberation

Answer 13

Initial Exceptions to the offence of disclosing jury deliberations

Answer 14

s.20E(1) It is not an offence for a person to disclose information in the proceedings mention in s.20D, for the purpose of enabling the jury to arrive at their verdict, or in connection with delivery of their verdict s. 20E(2) Not an offence under s.20D for a JUDGE dealing with those proceedings to disclose information - (a) for purpose of dealing with the case (b) For purpose of an investigation by a relevant investigator into whether an offence of contempt of court has been committed by or in relation to a juror in the proceedings mentioned in s.20D s.20E(3) Not an offence under s.20D for a person who reasonably believes that a disclosure described in (2)(b) has been made, to disclose information for the purposes of an investigation

Answer 15

s. 20F(1) It is not an offence for a person to disclose information to a person listed in subsection (2) if - (a) the disclosure is AFTER jury in proceedings has been discharged (b) the person making the disclosure believes that - (i) an offence of contempt of court has been, or may have been committed by or in relation to a juror in connection with proceedings, or (ii) conduct of a juror in connection with those proceedings may provide grounds for an appeal against conviction or sentence

Answer 16

(a) Police (b) Judge of the COA (c) Registrar of Criminal Appeals (d) Judge of the original court (e) member of staff of the court who would reasonably be expected to disclose to person (b) or (d)