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 made, and that the jury should consist of only members with a different postcode. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The random nature of a jury is to be protected by the administration of the system, not by orders of a judge excluding inhabitants of a particular area: ‘both the nomination of the prospective jurors onto the panel and the selection of jurors from the panel to try the case must be random . . that random process is to be carried out not by or on behalf of the judge, but by the court’s administration.’ and ‘The trial judge has a residual common law discretion to discharge individual potential jurors if they are not likely to be willing or able properly to perform their duties. Thus he may discharge individual potential jurors if they are incompetent (whether physically or mentally), if they know personally any defendant, or any witness, or may have any employment loyalties favouring one side rather than the other. He may also excuse those who are likely to be too preoccupied by personal tragedy, or personal responsibilities unfulfilled by reason of jury service (eg looking after the very young or the very old). And in very long trials, the practice is to excuse those for whom taking part in a long trial would cause hardship. But that discretion cannot be used to interfere with the composition of the panel or of an individual jury. ‘
Judges:
Henry LJ, Gage, Tucker JJ
Citations:
Times 29-Dec-1997, [1997] EWCA Crim 3364
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Sheffield Crown Court ex parte Brownlow CA 1980
Two police officers were being brought to trial, charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. They applied to the trial judge for an order directing the prosecution to inform the defence whether any members of the jury panel had criminal . .
Cited – Regina v Ford CACD 1989
The appellant challenged the judge’s refusal to accede to an application to swear in a multi-racial jury.
Held: The judge was right in coming to the conclusion that he should not order a multi-racial jury to be empanelled. He had no power to . .
Cited – Regina v Rose and Others HL 2-Jan-1982
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Comerford CACD 28-Oct-1997
Jury interference was anticipated. The assembled jurors were each allocated a number before being brought into court. Instead of their names being called out in the ballot, their number was called for the ballot. No juror was identified in court by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.152819