Bushell's Case
Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict: the foundation of jury independence.
Facts
William Penn and William Mead, leading Quakers, were tried at the Old Bailey for unlawful assembly after preaching in the street. The jury refused to convict them, despite the judge's directions and threats, and despite being locked up without food, drink or heating. The judge fined the jurors for returning a verdict against the evidence and the court's direction, and imprisoned them until they paid. Edward Bushell, one of the jurors, refused to pay and applied for habeas corpus.
Legal principle
Vaughan CJ ordered the release of Bushell and the other jurors. A jury cannot be punished for its verdict, because it is the jury, not the judge, who decides the facts, and the judge cannot know what evidence the jurors relied on or how they assessed it. The case established the independence of the jury and its right to return a verdict according to its conscience. A plaque at the Old Bailey commemorates the case.
Related cases on juries
- Attorney General v Dallas [2012] EWHC 156 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 991
- Attorney General v Fraill [2011] EWCA Crim 1570, [2012] 1 Cr App R 1
- Gregory v United Kingdom (1998) 25 EHRR 577
- Hanif and Khan v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 16
- R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37, [2007] 1 WLR 2679
- R v Ford [1989] QB 868
- R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5
- R v McKenna [1960] 1 QB 411
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
