Appeal on a multiplicity of issues from convictions recorded in the course of a trial which lasted about a year.
Held: In large fraud trials, the prosecution should consider severance of the indictment to shorten the length of individual trials, but the length of a trial was not an appeal ground unless it had made a fair trial impossible.
At the close of the defendant Kellard’s evidence, counsel on his behalf submitted that one of the jurors should be discharged because of certain hostile remarks and/or grimaces she had made in the course of the defendant’s cross-examination. The application was not, we note, to discharge the whole jury. The judge declined to discharge the juror; it was submitted that he was wrong to do so. The argument was reinforced by reference to the fact that the juror concerned had been elected foreman. The Court of Appeal approved the following remarks of Potter J in refusing to discharge the juror:
‘… it may often be the case that it becomes apparent to a defendant that some of his evidence is not being well received by a particular juror or jurors and I do not consider that what I have heard takes the position anywhere near the point where I need, in the interests of justice, discharge a juror who there is no reason whatever to suppose will not be true to her oath and decide the question of his guilt or innocence according to the overall weight of the evidence once properly directed by me as to the law.’
Citations:
Times 05-Aug-1994, Independent 09-Sep-1994, Ind Summary 05-Sep-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 134
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woodward and Others, Regina v CACD 13-Jun-2019
The four defendants were to stand trial for murder, the trial being expected to last ten weeks. The jury was selected to allow for this, but when the trial was set to overrun, it had to be adjourned mid-retirement for three weeks and then again to . .
Cited – Usman, Regina v CACD 5-Mar-2021
The defendant was giving evidence and that evidence had reached the point where following his evidence in-chief, he was being cross-examined by counsel for a co-defendant prior to being cross-examined again by counsel for the prosecution. There was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.86023