The defendants sought leave to appeal against drugs related convictions saying that the method used for jury ballotting by the Crown Court was unlawful, the prosecutor having withdrawn his request for this, and that a juror had convicted after conducted internet searches about his family.
Held: The judge had followed the standard practice at that centre for long trials, but that practice was not used elsewhere. The procedures followed would not have alerted the jurors in any way prejudicial to the defendant, and the procedure might be considered by the Rules Committee.
The allegations of internet misuse were not made out.
Sir John Thomas LCJ, Cox, Holroyds JJ
[2013] EWCA Crim 2357
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Comerford CACD 28-Oct-1997
Jury interference was anticipated. The assembled jurors were each allocated a number before being brought into court. Instead of their names being called out in the ballot, their number was called for the ballot. No juror was identified in court by . .
Cited – Lewis and Others v Regina CACD 23-May-2013
The defendants appealed saying that a juror had extraneous material regarding the matters before the court had been researched by a juror.
Held: The court observed at that the inference that complaints after verdicts simply represent a protest . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 27 November 2021; Ref: scu.518988