Sander v United Kingdom
A judge's direction was not enough to remedy evidence that jurors had made racist jokes, so the trial was unfair.
Facts
Mr Sander, who was of Asian origin, was tried for conspiracy to defraud. During the jury's deliberations, a juror sent the judge a note saying that two other jurors had been openly making racist remarks and jokes and that she feared the defendant would not be judged on the evidence. The judge asked the jury to search their consciences and decide the case on the evidence. The next day, the jury sent a letter denying any racial bias, but one juror sent a separate letter admitting that he may have been the one making the jokes. The judge did not discharge the jury, and Mr Sander was convicted.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a breach of article 6, because the jury was not impartial. The allegations of racist comments were specific and had been partly admitted by one juror, so there were sufficient guarantees needed to exclude objectively justified or legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the court. In the circumstances, the judge's direction and the jury's letter could not dispel those doubts, and the judge should have discharged the jury. The case is usually contrasted with Gregory v United Kingdom.
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.
