R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 4)
A jury's verdict cannot be impugned by evidence of its deliberations, but the court can inquire into alleged irregularities of an extraneous nature, such as pressure from other jurors to reach a verdict quickly.
Facts
Mr Smith was convicted of fraud after a long trial. After the verdict, a juror wrote to the judge complaining that other jurors had put pressure on the minority to agree to verdicts quickly, and had engaged in bargaining over verdicts on different counts. The judge had dealt with an earlier complaint during the deliberations by giving the jury a further direction. Mr Smith appealed, arguing that the convictions were unsafe because of the irregularities.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. The court held that the common law rule, confirmed in R v Mirza, prevents the court from inquiring into the deliberations of the jury after verdict, but that it was not breached where the complaint concerned matters which had been raised with the judge before the verdict. The judge should have given a further, fuller direction to the jury when the complaint was first raised, reminding them of their duty to reach verdicts according to the evidence and of their right to disagree. The court said that bargaining over verdicts is wholly inconsistent with the jury's oath.
Related cases on trial, pleas, juries and sentencing
- 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
- R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37, [2007] 1 WLR 2679
- R v Caley [2012] EWCA Crim 2821
- R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039
- R v Goodyear [2005] EWCA Crim 888, [2005] 1 WLR 2532
- R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346, [2005] 2 Cr App R 5
Studying criminal procedure? 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.
