The court drew attention to the difference between the situation where the court itself makes inquiries as to events in the jury retiring room with the aim of bringing the court in question into contempt and that where it makes inquiries with the aim of trying to ensure that justice does not miscarry: ‘we have some difficulty in applying the idea of contempt of court to a situation where a court itself makes inquiries, not with the aim of bringing the court in question into contempt but with the very different aim of trying to ensure that justice does not miscarry. Moreover, Parliament has not qualified the appeal court’s powers under section 104 of the 1995 Act [Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995] by reference to section 8 . . . In these circumstances, since the point does not actually arise for determination, we need say no more than that we reserve our opinion both as to the effect of section 8 on the appeal court’s powers under section 104 of the 1995 Act and as to whether, in any event, the court would ever use those powers to inquire into a jury’s deliberations.’
 ScotCS 241, 2001 SLT 1198
Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
Cited – Attorney General v Scotcher HL 19-May-2005
Following a trial, a juror wrote to the defendant’s mother to say that other jury members had not considered the case in a proper manner. He had been given written advice that he was not free to discuss a case with anyone. He appealed his conviction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169223