(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might arise in the future where the presumption against enquiring into activities in the jury room might be rebutted.
The need to protect and preserve the finality of trial by jury as a justification for the exclusionary rule loses its force where the evidence in question does not go to the substance of the jury’s deliberations, but, rather, to demonstrate the disruption of the deliberative process.
Lord Goff of Chieveley
 AC 860,  UKPC 29,  83 Cr App R 292, (1986) 83 LSG 1995,  3 WLR 304, (1986) 83 Cr App R 29,  3 All ER 248
Approved – Ras Behari Lal v King-Emperor PC 1933
It was alleged that a juror had been unable to understand sufficient English to follow the trial.
Held: The rule against enquiring into the events in the jury room has an exception where there are external events which may have affected them. . .
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. . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 January 2021; Ref: scu.192256