Jury Trial in UK Law
-
R v Donald Pendleton
“
The Court of Appeal can make its assessment of the fresh evidence it has heard, but save in a clear case it is at a disadvantage in seeking to relate that evidence to the rest of the evidence which the jury heard. For these reasons it will usually be wise for the Court of Appeal, in a case of any difficulty, to test their own provisional view by asking whether the evidence, if given at the trial, might reasonably have affected the decision of the trial jury to convict.
-
R v Powell (Anthony Glassford); R v English (Philip); R v Daniels (Antonio Eval)
“
Accordingly, in the appeal of English, I consider that the direction of the learned trial judge was defective (although this does not constitute a criticism of the judge, who charged the jury in conformity with the principle stated in Hyde) because in accordance with the principle stated by Lord Parker in Reg. v. Anderson, at p. 120B, he did not qualify his direction on foresight of really serious injury by stating that if the jury considered that the use of the knife by Weddle was the use of a weapon and an action on Weddle's part which English did not foresee as a possibility, then English should not be convicted of murder.
-
David Shields Montgomery (Appellant) HM Advocate and Another (Respondents) Andrew Alexander Marshall Coulter (Appellant) HM Advocate and Another (Respondents)
“
The principal safeguards of the objective impartiality of the tribunal lie in the trial process itself and the conduct of the trial by the trial judge. On the one hand there is the discipline to which the jury will be subjected of listening to and thinking about the evidence. The actions of seeing and hearing the witnesses may be expected to have a far greater impact on their minds than such residual recollections as may exist about reports about the case in the media.
-
Davies v DPP
“
But there are other cases within this field in which there is evidence on which a reasonable jury could find that a witness was a "participant". In such a case the issue of " accomplice vel non" is for the jury's decision: and a Judge should direct them that if they consider on the evidence, that the witness was an accomplice, it is dangerous for them to act on his evidence unless corroborated: though it is competent for them to do so if, after that warning, they still think fit to do so.
-
R v Turnbull
“
When, in the judgment of the trial Judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glance or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions, the situation is very different. The Judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.
-
Rookes v Barnard
“
In a case in which exemplary damages are appropriate, a jury should be directed that if, but only if, the sum which they have in mind to award as compensation (which may of course be a sum aggravated by the way in which the Defendant has behaved to the Plaintiff) is inadequate to punish him for his outrageous conduct, to mark their disapproval of such conduct and to deter him from repeating it, then it can award some larger sum.
-
R v Boardman
“
The test must be—is the evidence capable of tending to persuade a reasonable jury of the accused's guilt on some ground other than his bad character and disposition to commit the sort of crime with which he is charged? The similarity would have to be so unique or striking that common sense makes it inexplicable on the basis of coincidence.
- The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2015
- The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2021
- The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2019
- The Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of duration of non-jury trial provisions) Order 2017
-
Jury Trial in Criminal Cases
A famous actor of stage, screen and television appears in a new role in this account and criticism of trial by jury
-
Why a Jury Trial is More Like a Movie Than a Novel
This essay is concerned to note the way in which successful trial advocacy seems to stem from the ability to convert legal discourse into a story form. These stories need to be ones with which a ju...
- The Right to Choose Jury Trial
- The Right to Choose Jury Trial
-
The FCPA has its first jury trial, after 34 years – will the Bribery Act take the same time to come before the courts?
Although there have been many hundreds of prosecutions under the FCPA, particularly over the past 10 years or so, this was, we are told, the first such case against a company which had made it all ...
-
UK: Defamation case provides ‘trial run’ of the future position on trial by jury
A recent defamation decision, Christopher McGrath v Independent Print Limited [2013] EWCH 2202 (QB) provides some insight into the future availability of jury trials once the Defamation Act 2013 r...
-
Man jailed for blackmail and contaminating baby food
A man who put metal in some jars of baby food in the United Kingdom has been jailed for 14 years. Nigel Wright, a father of two, was convicted of blackmail and contaminating baby food by a jury fol...
-
SFO Prevails In First Contested Overseas Corruption Trial
The U.K.’s Serious Frauds Office prevailed in its first overseas corruption trial, securing a jury verdict in its favor and against two former Innospec executives. The case stems from a referral by...... The U.K.’s Serious Frauds Office prevailed in its first overseas corruption trial, securing a jury verdict in its favor and against two former Innospec executives. The case stems from a referral by the DOJ following FCPA investigation conducted by ... ...
-
Judgment after trial before Judge without jury (Practice Direction 40B para 14.1(1))
King's Bench forms for use in cases such as personal injury, negligence and breach of contract.
-
Judgment after trial before Judge with jury (Practice Direction 40B para 14.1(2))
King's Bench forms for use in cases such as personal injury, negligence and breach of contract.
-
Judgment on non-attendance of party at trial (rule 39.3 and PD39A paragraph 2)
King's Bench forms for use in cases such as personal injury, negligence and breach of contract.... ... Claimant ... Defendant ... This claim having been called on before (Judge’s title and name) without a jury at (state the venue of the trial) ... And the defendant having failed to appear and on proof of the claimant’s claim ... And the claimant ... ...
-
Order for separate trial of an issue (rule 3.1(2)(i))
King's Bench forms for use in cases such as personal injury, negligence and breach of contract.... ... (iii) with the issue ... (i) to be entered in the [jury list][non-jury list] category [A] [B] or [C], with a time estimate of (specify number of days/weeks ), and ... (ii) ... ...