Committal Proceedings Misconception
| Date | 01 July 1979 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837904300307 |
| Published date | 01 July 1979 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Article
COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS MISCONCEPTION
Because
of
adramatic revelation which a British
juror
has recently
made to the present writer, this article purports to highlight an alarm-
ing misconception entertained by some jurors as respects the true effect
of
committal proceedings in England and Wales.l
Before drawing attention to the precise nature
of
the said miscon-
ception, it would probably be useful to reproduce the notice displayed
in
jury
rooms (as pointed
out
to us in Barrister's diary") which reads:
'Her Majesty's Judges remind you
of
the solemn obligation upon you
not to reveal, in any circumstances, to any person either during the trial
or after it is over, anything relating to it which has occurred in this
room while you have been considering your verdict."
Despite the strictures
of
that notice, it is contended
that
no risk
of
contempt
of
court" is incurred either by the
juror
in question (who for
obvious reasons must remain anonymous) or by the present writer in
revealing the curious means by which the
jury
arrived at their unanimous
verdict, provided
that
the particular case is not identified by name or
through
other
details and the venue
of
the court is not divulged.
The
juror
volunteered the information
that
when the
jury
retired
to the
jury
room to embark
upon
their deliberations, they ignored the
evidence completely. Instead, they attached considerable significance
to the fact
that
the defendant was committed for trial. They therefore
felt
that
the examining justices 'must have been satisfied
of
the defend-
ant's guilt on the evidence they had heard, for otherwise they would not
have committed him for trial in the first place'! Consequently, they
returned averdict
of
Guilty. The juryman in question was, astonishingly
enough, an Assistant Bank Manager
of
one
of
the national banks.
The writer
took
great pains to impress upon him
that
the
jury
had
approached their task on a totally wrong footing.
It
was only after
lengthy discussion
that
he was finally persuaded to accept the view
that
the jury (as a whole) had not discharged their function properly.
Now, since an Assistant Bank Manager
took
that
line (in presuming
the defendant guilty simply because he had been committed for trial by
the justices), one is left wondering how tempting it
may
be for
many
other jurors - as evidently it must have been for the
other
eleven
jurymen in the instant case - belonging to less humble professions to
labour under the same misapprehension and cause a similar miscarriage
of
justice.
163
To continue reading
Request your trial