The defendant had failed to co-operate when called upon to act as a juror having been refused exemption. He refused to be searched on entering the court building. He now appealed against a fine.
Held: The court set out the minimum requirements for a fair hearing in a case of this kind: ‘1) The Juror must understand what he is said to have done wrong;
2) The court must be satisfied that the juror when (by act or omission) he did wrong, had the means of knowing that it was wrong;
3) The juror must understand what defences (if any) may be available to him;
4) The juror must have a reasonable opportunity to make any relevant representations he wishes;
5) If necessary the juror must have an opportunity to consider what representations he wishes to make once he has understood the issues involved.’ In this case it was not clear that the defenedant had known the defence of reasonable cause. He had intensely personal reasons, born of traumatic experience, for fearing a search which involved either a metal wand or human touch. That being so the appeal was allowed.
Judges:
Potter LJ, Rafferty, Hedley JJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Crim 1328
Links:
Statutes:
Juries Act 1974 20, Administration of Justice Act 1960 13(3), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 155
Citing:
Cited – Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Dec-1992
The fact that the elderly victim of the robbery of which the defendant had been convicted had failed to pick out Mr Edwards when she was shown two volumes of photographs of possible burglars which included his photograph was not disclosed to the . .
Cited – Ravnsborg v Sweden ECHR 23-Mar-1994
Article 6 did not apply to proceedings where the applicant had been fined for making improper statements in written observations before the Swedish courts. The proceedings were regarded as being outside the ambit of article 6 because they were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.175249
