R v Twomey
The first criminal trial in England and Wales for centuries to be ordered without a jury, because of the danger of jury tampering.
Facts
Four men were charged with offences arising from a robbery of over £1.75 million from a warehouse at Heathrow airport in 2004. Their three previous trials had collapsed, one of them because of a serious attempt at jury tampering. The prosecution applied for the case to be tried by a judge alone under section 44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows trial without a jury where there is evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering and where protective measures would not be enough to prevent it.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal ordered that the trial should take place without a jury. Lord Judge CJ said that trial by jury is a hallmark of our constitution and a fundamental right, and that the power to order trial without a jury should be used only as a last resort. However, the conditions in section 44 were met here, because there was strong evidence of a real and present danger of tampering, and the protective measures needed to prevent it, such as round the clock police protection for the jurors over a long trial, would be unreasonably burdensome. In 2010 the defendants were convicted after a trial before Treacy J sitting alone.
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.
