Boston v W S Bagshaw and Sons (Note): CA 1966

Once a jury have given their verdict, and it has been accepted by the judge, and they have been discharged, they are not at liberty to say that they meant something different: ‘The reasons for this are twofold: first, to secure the finality of decisions arrived at by the jury; secondly, to protect the jury themselves and to prevent them being exposed to pressure or inducement to explain or alter their views. If this were to be permitted, where is it to stop? After a jury have solemnly found a man ‘Guilty’ and he has been sentenced, are they to be at liberty next day to return and say they meant to find him ‘Not Guilty’? It cannot be.’
Lord Denning MR
[1966] 1 WLR 1135
England and Wales
Citing:

  • Cited – Ellis v Deheer 1922
    The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
    Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
    [1922] 2 KB 113

Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
    The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
    [2004] UKHL 2, Times 23-Jan-04, [2004] 2 WLR 201, [2004] 1 AC 1118, [2004] HRLR 11, 16 BHRC 279, [2004] 2 Cr App R 8, [2004] 1 All ER 925

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 December 2020; Ref: scu.192273