In prosecuting a juror for acts intended to pervert the course of justice, it must be shown not only that the juror spoke to the defendant about the matter, but that the juror intended to interfere with justice or the nature of the communication did so. Brooke LJ said: ‘It appears from the authorities that the prosecution must either prove an intent to pervert the course of justice or, as in Meissener an intent to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. The course of justice may be perverted if it is obstructed, interfered with, defeated or changed.’
Judges:
Brooke LJ
Citations:
Times 28-Jan-1999, Gazette 17-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Crim 130
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Re S 36 Criminal Justice Act 1972; Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2002 CACD 14-Oct-2002
The court was asked: ‘Whether the common-law offence of perverting the course of public justice is committed where false evidence is given or made, not to defeat what the witness believes to be the ends of justice, or not to procure what the witness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.85351
