Jurisdiction of CACD for Venire de Novo writ
The House considered what should be the consequences of a radical or fundamental error in the trial process, and whether there was jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to order a venire de novo when the court was satisfied that a verdict of guilty must be set aside because of a ‘material irregularity consisting of improper pressure imposed upon the jury at any time before verdict.’
Held: A writ of venire de novo could be issued when irregularity has resulted in no trial validly commencing or when no properly constituted jury ever returned a valid verdict, but not when irregularity occurred between the valid commencement of the trial and the discharge of the jury after reaching a verdict.
Lord Diplock said of unfair pressure placed upon a jury to reach a verdict that if the judge had imposed a time limit on the jury in the course of his summing up there would have been a risk of pressure. He went on to draw a distinction between those cases where venire de novo might lie because the trial had never been ‘validly commenced’, and those which, although validly commenced, ‘had not been validly concluded by a properly constituted jury bringing an unequivocal verdict of guilty or not guilty followed by sentence or discharge of the defendant by the court.’ There was a validly presented indictment but an irregularity in procedure that resulted in no valid verdict being returned.
Lord Diplock said: ‘the state of judicial authority as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal to issue writs of venire de novo at the date of its abolition in 1966. That Court could do so if there had been an irregularity of procedure which resulted in there having been no trial that had been validly commenced. It could do so if the trial had come to an end without a properly constituted jury ever having returned a valid verdict.’
Lord Diplock
[1982] AC 822
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Rose and Others CACD 1982
The court considered the effect of an irregularity in a trial and how it should be dealt with. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Tarrant CACD 18-Dec-1997
At a first trial it was suspected that a juror had been approached, and a retrial was ordered. The prosecutor applied to have the trial moved out of the area to avoid a repetition, but the judge directed instead that a jury protrection order be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.450342