The judge should investigate any suspicions of jury tampering immediately, but must be careful not to enquire as to the jury’s deliberations. The common law rule against investigating events in the jury room has recognised exceptions, but these are confined to situations where the jury is alleged to have been affected by what are termed extraneous influences, eg contact with other persons who may have passed on information which should not have been before the jury.
Citations:
Ind Summary 24-Apr-1995, Times 02-Mar-1995, [1996] Crim LR 248
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 25-Jun-1997
The defendant said that the husband of a woman juror had sat in court while submissions were made about evidence later excluded form the jury. The evidence was of previous convictions and a similar prosecution against the defendant.
Held: Some . .
Cited – Regina v Oke CACD 8-Jul-1997
A juror’s husband had been listening in court. He was present when the jury was sent out and matters prejudicial to the defendant were discussed.
Held: After questioning of the husband, there was no evidence to suggest that any improper . .
Cited – Regina v Smith, Regina v Mercieca HL 16-Feb-2005
A member of the jury wrote to the judge saying that other members were failing to discharge their duties properly. Smith took a tactical decision not to seek a retrial. The judge saw counsel in chambers, after which the jury were reminded of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.86151