The jury retired on a Friday. They did not agree and a majority direction was given. Later the clerk asked the foreman whether at least 10 of the jury were agreed upon a verdict. He answered, ‘Yes’. Asked what the verdict was, the foreman answered, ‘Guilty’. He was not asked whether all agreed or, if not, how many agreed and how many dissented. The jury dispersed, but on the Friday the judge considered with counsel the irregularity in taking the verdict. The jury reconvened on the Monday, for the verdict to be retaken. The correct questions were put and the foreman in answer replied that the jury’s verdict was guilty, that the verdict was by a majority, and that the verdict was by a majority of 11 to 1.
Held: The appeal failed. Had the jury reconvened immediately the mistake would have been rectified permissibly. The discharge of the jury and its dispersal did not preclude rectification; and on the facts there was no legal objection to the validity of the substantive verdict.
Citations:
Times 25-Mar-1996, [1996] 2 Cr App R 303
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Millward CACD 7-Apr-1998
The defendant was tried for causing grievous bodily harm. After a majority direction, the jury returned, finding him guity. When asked if this was ‘the verdict of you all’, the formean replied ‘Yes’. The day after, he wrote to the judge to say that . .
Cited – Regina v Tantram; Regina v Bibby etc CACD 24-May-2001
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy in have combined to put into the human food chain poultry meat which had been condemned as unfit. The jury after retiremen had indicated that they had reached agreement on some . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 08 October 2022; Ref: scu.87249