R v Mirza
The common law rule that the courts will not inquire into jury deliberations after the verdict was compatible with the right to a fair trial.
Facts
Mr Mirza, who had come to the UK from Pakistan, gave evidence at his trial for indecent assault through an interpreter. After he was convicted by a majority of ten to two, a juror wrote to his counsel alleging that some jurors had believed that his use of an interpreter was a ploy, and that the jury had been prejudiced against him. In a separate appeal heard with his, R v Connor and Rollock, a juror alleged that other jurors had refused to deliberate properly and had decided to convict both defendants together to save time. The defendants argued that evidence of what had happened in the jury room should be admitted.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that evidence of what was said in the jury room during deliberations was inadmissible to impeach a verdict, under the common law rule of the secrecy of jury deliberations. The rule protects the finality of verdicts, the confidentiality of deliberations and jurors from pressure and harassment, and it was compatible with article 6. Lord Steyn dissented, saying that the rule could lead to miscarriages of justice. The House said that matters extrinsic to the deliberations, such as jurors being given information from outside the trial, could still be investigated.
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
- Bushell's Case (1670) Vaughan 135
- 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
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.
