Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

All matters involving criminal law

Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

Postby Mrs Forgetful » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:41 pm

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?

Thanks :)
User avatar
Mrs Forgetful
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

Postby dls » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:18 pm

Prime is really about the jurors not talking with those outside the jury.

Regina v Prime: CACD 1973
References: (1973) 57 Cr App R 632
Coram: Widgery LCJ
Ratio: Widgery LCJ said: 'It is important in all criminal cases that the judge should on the first occasion when the jury separate warn them not to talk about the case to anybody who is not one of their number.'
This case is cited by:
    - Cited - Regina v Burley, Molnar, Stanton CACD (Bailii, [2001] EWCA Crim 731)
    The defendants appealed against their conviction for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. They denied knowledge that the goods (cars) were stolen.
    Held: The judge had failed to direct the jury not to discuss the case outside court. He had failed . .
    - Cited - Regina v Chaouk ([1986] VicRp 70, [1986] VR 707, Austlii )
    (Supreme Court of Victoria) The court considered an appeal beed upon allegations as to the jury directions given after retirement. . .
    - Cited - Webb and Hay v The Queen ((1994) 181 CLR 41, Austlii, (1994) 122 ALR 41, (1994) 68 ALJR 582)
    (Australia) Criminal Law - Jury - Impartiality - Murder trial - Juror giving flowers to victim's mother - Whether juror or jury to be discharged Appropriate test - Reasonable apprehension of lack of impartiality or real danger of lack of . .
    - Cited - Mcclenaghan, Regina v CCNI (Bailii, [2014] NICC 20)
    . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Criminal Practice
See also: http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-prime-cacd-1973/


See also

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/Canter ... 984/3.html
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12003
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

Postby Mrs Forgetful » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:57 pm

Thanks so much DLS. I've seen the Prime and Burley judgments. You've given me two new ones to go through. Much appreciated! :mrgreen:
User avatar
Mrs Forgetful
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:28 pm

Re: Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

Postby dls » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:18 pm

One of those cases includes a warning against being too picky about such directions.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12003
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Query about Judge's directions re jury dispersal

Postby Mrs Forgetful » Sat Feb 25, 2017 11:18 am

Yep - I saw that. I know that most directions are not specific and have to be made in accordance with the specific circumstances of the case.

Thank you so much for your help. The cases made interesting reading!
User avatar
Mrs Forgetful
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 4:28 pm


Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron