Appeal from conviction of fraud – material provided to the jury after retirement which had not been used during the trial and made available to be challenged.
Held: Conviction set aside: ‘For the jury to use the extraneous material provided after their retirement (i.e. the sample of further cheques) in order to compare handwriting so as to decide whether the appellant had written out the body of the cheques in Appendix G, necessarily meant using that extraneous material as evidence in an exercise that would enable the jury to reach their own conclusion in relation to the appellant’s unchallenged and crucial evidence to the contrary effect. In our judgment, it was wholly impermissible for the jury to make use of the extraneous material for such an evidential exercise. However, as we have already stated, it is very likely that this is precisely what the jury did.’ and
‘ as a result of their impermissible evidential exercise, the jury could have come to the conclusion that the appellant had not merely signed the cheques in Appendix G, but that he had written out the entire body of the cheques and had lied about having done so. As we have already explained, the appellant’s evidence that (apart from one minor exception) he had not written out the body of any of the relevant cheques, was evidence that went to the very heart of his defence. In our judgment, there can be no doubt that any conclusion by the jury that the appellant had lied about this important matter is one that might reasonably have affected their decision to convict the appellant. Since we are satisfied that the jury could have come to such a conclusion as the result of the irregularity that occurred in this case, the conviction must therefore be considered unsafe’
Judges:
Hooper LJ, Forbes, Blake JJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 1418
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Karakaya CACD 16-Feb-2005
No Internet Research for juror
After conclusion of the trial, the jury bailiff discovered notes in the jury room which indictated that the jury, after they had retired for their verdict, had read and discussed notes obtained by a juror from the Internet relating to the case.
Cited – Regina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.270947