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 charges, but wanted guidance on the rest. They were called into court and gave verdicts which were inconsistent with the first note. On further retirement they sent a second note wich indicated that the verdicts taken were wrong.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part. Thoughit would have been better if the judge had disclosed the full text of the jury’s first note immediately, it had not in fact affected the value of the verdict.
A trial judge has a discretion to accept an amendment to a jury verdict, but only in circumstances which disallowed the possibility of there having been a change of mind. The jury had delayed 27 minutes before delivering a note to the judge indicating a desire to alter the verdict. That delay was too long, and the verdict stood.
Rose LJ VP CACD, Hunt, Mackay JJ
Times 20-Jul-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1364
Bailii
Contempt of Court Act 1981 8
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Andrews 1986
Two defendants were tried for causing injuries to one child. The jury convicted the female defendant, of positive acts of cruelty against the child and returned a verdict of not guilty of those acts in respect of the male defendant. After the police . .
(1986) 82 Cr App R 148
CitedLalchan Nanan v The State PC 1986
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board refused to admit evidence that four members of the jury, including the foreman, were acting under a misapprehension when they agreed to the verdict. However, the Board accepted the possibility that other cases might . .
[1986] AC 860, [1986] UKPC 29, [1986] 83 Cr App R 292, (1986) 83 LSG 1995, [1986] 3 WLR 304, (1986) 83 Cr App R 29, [1986] 3 All ER 248
CitedRex v Green 1950
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘Any communication between a jury and the presiding judge must be read out in court, so that both parties, the prosecution and the defence, may know what the jury are asking and what is the answer ‘ . .
[1950] 34 Cr App R 38
CitedRegina v Gorman CACD 1987
Lord Lane CJ said: ‘ . . certain propositions can now be set out as to what should be done by a judge who receives a communication from a jury which has retired to considered its verdict.
First of all, if the communication raises something . .
[1987] 85 Cr App R 121
CitedRamstead v The Queen PC 2-Dec-1998
New Zealand. Where a judge had received a note from the jury as to intended riders to their verdict, he was obliged to notify counsel and, having seen the foreman of the jury in chambers in counsel’s absence, the verdicts had constituted a material . .
Times 03-Dec-98, [1998] UKPC 47, [1999] 2 WLR 698, [1999] 2 AC 92
CitedRegina v Maloney (PJ) CACD 25-Mar-1996
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, . .
Times 25-Mar-96, [1996] 2 Cr App R 303
CitedRegina v Townsend 1982
Where a judge in a criminal trial received a note from the jury as to voting intentions, it would have both been possible and appropriate for the judge to tell counsel that he had a note showing unanimity on some counts and a division of opinion on . .
[1982] 74 Crim App R 218
CitedEllis v Deheer 1922
The court heard an application for a new trial of a civil action which had been tried before a jury on the ground that the verdict as delivered by the foreman was not the verdict of the jury.
Held: A jury’s deliberations cannot be questioned. . .
[1922] 2 KB 113
CitedRegina v Froud CACD 1990
The defendant appealed saying that the judge had wrongly accepted an amendment of the jury’s verdict.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The verdict of not guilty had been corrected almost instantaneously and the judge had rightly exercised his . .
[1990] Crim LR 197
CitedRegina v Orgles (Kevin) – Regina v Orgles (Julie) CACD 9-Jun-1993
Jurors were not to be questioned individually as to on their capacity to continue. Any questions must be put through the foreman, while the whole jury was in open court. It is an irregularity to question individual jurors in the absence of the . .
Times 09-Jun-93, Gazette 08-Sep-93, [1994] 1 WLR 108, [1994] 98 Cr App R 185
CitedRegina v Follon CACD 1994
The conviction was quashed where the jury, having been unable to agree and been discharged, there was a disturbance in the public gallery. The judge asked the jury to retire again and they returned a verdict of guilty. . .
[1994] Crim LR 225
CitedRegina 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

Cited by:
CitedMaxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
[2010] UKSC 48, [2011] 2 Cr App Rep 31, [2011] 1 WLR 1837, UKSC 2010/0003

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 December 2020; Ref: scu.88687