I have been working on an appeal against conviction via CCRC, and one of the grounds I identified was that the judge gave the wrong directions to the jury in relation to jury dispersal.
He said it was his "preference" that the jury did not meet in groups of two or three, and referred to them discussing the evidence (which had not yet been given in full) "at lunchtime".
My argument is that it should not be the judge's preference
as that sends the message that basically, it doesn't matter how many there are when they discuss the case / evidence and that they do not have to wait until they are in the jury room.
CCRC have referred to the complaints about missed and misdirection to the jury as "semantics". Directions to the jury ARE in fact related to "semantics" - words and phrases / meanings. I add that this case had the benefit of submissions from a barrister.
The inmate rang me last night to tell me of two appeal judgements that might assist. He has access to Blackstones and Archold in the prison library.
He mentioned: R v Prime
(no date) C.App 632 and R v Burnley 2001 Cr.App 3964
Can any legal beagles help with a link to the judgments please, or even references to the judgment?