After a juror had been discharged during the jury’s retirement, the judge directed the remaining members as follows: ‘I do not know and I am not going to enquire as to whether the juror whom I have discharged took part to any great extent in the discussions which you have had but, if she did, then you must put aside from your decisions anything that she may have to contribute to your discussions because you are now eleven and it is now a decision of eleven of you, uninfluenced by anything else, that now matters in this case.’
Held: Moses LJ said ‘We question the correctness of the judge’s directions to the jury that they should put aside from their consideration anything that the juror he discharged may have had to contribute to the discussion. That may be a direction which it is impossible or, indeed, wrong for the jury to obey. It will particularly be impossible in a case . . where the juror, prior to discharge, may well have contributed to a verdict of guilty when verdicts were delivered on different occasions.’ He went on: ‘But we do not think that that particular direction in the instant case leads to the conclusion that the verdicts are unsafe.’
Judges:
Moses LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Crim 1041
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Carter, Regina v CACD 4-Feb-2010
The defendant appealed against his convictions on allegations of mortgage fraud conspiracy. Two jurors had been discharged after retirement, and the defendant Said that the remaining jurors should have been warned not to take account of any comments . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597255