The defendant was charged with obstructing a police officer under the 1971 Act. The jury was given a majority direction, but when brought back to court about two hours later, at 3.16 pm, they had still been unable to reach a decision. The judge then told the jury that there was no need to rush, but indicated that he would bring the jury back to court at about 4 pm unless they reached a decision before then. The jury was in fact brought back to court at 4.07 pm, and when asked if they had reached a verdict on which at least 10 of them agreed the foreman said ‘no’. The members of the jury were not asked if they were likely to reach a verdict and were simply discharged. A few minutes later the jury bailiff said that the jury has asked for a few more minutes. The judge allowed them to, and the returned a guilty verdict. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Once a jury had been told that they were discharged from reaching a verdict, they were functus officio, that was an end of that particular trial, and any subsequent proceedings were a nullity.
Popplewell J said: ‘The primary point that is taken in this appeal is that once the jury has been discharged by the Assistant Recorder no agreement by his counsel to the continuation to the trial could put the matter right. That argument is not founded on any authority that counsel could have been able to find. Counsel for the prosecution, in helpful address to the court, has submitted that once the jury have been told that they are discharged from reaching a verdict in the matter that is the end of that particular trial, and that any subsequent proceedings are a nullity because the jury, having been discharged, are functus officio.
In our judgment that is a good argument. When the jury returned the Assistant Recorder should have asked them whether there was any sensible prospect of their reaching agreement if they had more time.’
Judges:
Dunn LJ, Michael Davies, Popplewell JJ
Citations:
[1984] Crim LR 425, [1984] 148 JP 765
Statutes:
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 23(4)
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.192263
