R v Young (Stephen)
Evidence of what happened outside the jury room, such as some jurors using a Ouija board in a hotel, can be admitted and lead to a retrial.
Facts
Stephen Young was tried for the murders of a married couple. The jury was sent to a hotel overnight during its deliberations. In the hotel, four of the jurors held a seance using a Ouija board, in which they asked the spirit of one of the murder victims who had killed them. The board was said to have spelled out Stephen Young done it. The jury convicted Mr Young the next day. The seance later came to light.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prohibits disclosing or inquiring into jury deliberations, but the court held that the seance took place in the hotel, not in the jury room, so it was not part of the jury's deliberations and evidence of it could be admitted. The seance was a material irregularity that might have influenced the verdict. Mr Young was convicted again at the retrial.
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.
