Tibbetts v The Attorney General of The Cayman Islands: PC 24 Mar 2010

(Cayman Islands) The defendant appealed against his conviction for money laundering, alleging apparent bias in a juror who was said to have been acquainted with one witness.
Held: The appeal failed. The juror had correctly replied to the questions put to him, but thay did not identify the problem. Had the court known of the true relationship (acquaintance at one remove through partners), he would have been excused, but in looking at the situation, the court had correctly applied the law: ‘The putative observer would not conclude that Mr Uzzell might have accepted Mr Bjuroe’s evidence because of the relationship. He or she would have accepted it because it was not challenged and it was not challenged because it was true.’ The defendant’s ‘submission is inconsistent, not only with the failure to challenge his evidence in cross-examination, but also with the fact that . . the appellant did not contradict the evidence of Mr Bjuroe. ‘

Lord Saville, Lord Rodger, Lord Brown, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke
[2010] UKPC 8
CitedRegina v Khan and Hanif CACD 14-Mar-2008
Each defendant appealed against his conviction saying that the presence on the jury of certain people involved in the law gave the appearance of bias.
Held: The court should be made aware if any potential juror either is or has been a police . .
CitedPorter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
CitedRegina v Abdroikof, Regina v Green; Regina v Williamson HL 17-Oct-2007
The House was asked whether a jury in criminal trials containing variously a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, or a police officer would have the appearance of bias. In Abdroikof, the presence of the police officer on the jury was discovered only . .
CitedMorrison and Another v AWG Group Ltd and Another CA 20-Jan-2006
The defendants requested the judge to recuse himself because one witness was well known to the judge. He declined, saying that arrangements had been made for him not to be called. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was no allegation of actual . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.406177