Site icon swarb.co.uk

Regina v Davis (George): CACD 1976

After retirement, the jury requested, and was inadvertently supplied with a copy of a statement made by a witness to the police. The statement had been used by defence counsel for the purposes of cross-examination, but the document itself had not been exhibited.
Held: The court questioned the absolute nature of the observation that a conviction would inevitably be quashed in circumstances where the jury had received evidence after retirement, not on the basis that the principle was in doubt, but as to whether every breach of it would result in the quashing of the conviction. The breach would be an irregularity, which depending on the circumstances might or might not result in the application of the proviso to the section. In this case the proviso was applied.
Although no additional evidence should be placed before the jury after their retirement, it is perfectly permissible for them to have a repeat of evidence which had already been given.

Citations:

[1976] 62 CAR 194

Statutes:

Criminal Appeal Act 1968 291)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina 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.
AppliedRegina v Maggs CACD 1990
The charge was of causing death by dangerous driving. Sketch plans with measurements were supplied to the jury. They asked for and were given a tape measure. The defendant appealed.
Held: Though once they retired the hjury should not be given . .
CitedRegina v Imran, Hussain CACD 9-Jun-1997
The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223470

Exit mobile version