The appellant was charged on indictment with two counts of attempted rape. The jury failed to agree on their first retirement following the summing-up, and were then given an impeccable majority direction. They returned to court after a further retirement and the clerk asked whether at least 10 were agreed upon a verdict. The foreman answered, ‘Yes.’ The clerk asked if the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty of rape and the foreman answered, ‘Not guilty.’ The clerk asked, ‘On the charge of attempted rape do you find him guilty or not guilty?’ and the foreman answered, ‘Guilty.’ The clerk asked if that was the verdict of ‘you all or by a majority’. The foreman answered, ‘By a majority.’ The clerk asked how many of the jury agreed on the verdict and how many dissented, and the foreman answered, ’10 agreed’. The clerk then observed, ’10 agreed to 2 of you.’ The foreman did not respond. The court was asked ‘Whether it is necessary in order to comply with the terms of the section . . for the foreman of the jury, having stated in open court the number agreeing to the verdict, to go on to state the number of those dissenting.’
Held: The defendant’s appeal failed. It is a necessary requirement of a lawful verdict that the jury say how many agreed and how many dissented.
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said: ‘In short, compliance with the requirement of section 17(3) of the 1974 Act is mandatory before a judge can accept a majority verdict of guilty; but the precise form of words used by the clerk of the court when asking questions of the foreman of the jury, and the precise form of words used by the latter in answer to such questions, as long as they make it clear to an ordinary person how the jury was divided, do not constitute any essential part of that requirement.’
References: [1983] 1 WLR 6, [1983] 1 All ER 56, (1982) 76 Cr App R 79
Judges: Lord Brandon
Statutes: Juries Act 1974 17(3)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is 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 . .
([1998] EWCA Crim 1203, [1999] 1 Cr App R 61)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.192258 br>