Juries and Extraneous Material: A Question of Integrity
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2007.71.6.520 |
| Published date | 01 December 2007 |
| Author | Nicola Haralambous |
| Date | 01 December 2007 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Juries and Extraneous Material:
A Question of Integrity
Nicola Haralambous*
Abstract This article challenges the unconditional faith seemingly placed
on juries by the judiciary. Despite the prohibition on investigation into
jury deliberations, a number of important cases have come to light which
invite questions on the extent to which we can be sure that juries follow
judicial directions. This article explores the recent case law in which juries
may have relied upon extraneous material or other external influences
and, finally, briefly compares such impropriety with the use of jurors with
specialised knowledge.
Trial by jury is an important feature of the criminal justice system of
England and Wales. The right to be tried by one’s peers ensures a degree
of societal control over the execution of criminal justice. Defendants
have traditionally favoured trial by jury over summary trial by magis-
trates,1as one’s peers are thought to be a fairer tribunal of fact and are
not ‘case-hardened’. This categorical faith in juries has also been ex-
pressed from time to time by members of the judiciary:
. . . juries up and down the country have a passionate and profound belief
in, and a commitment to, the right of a Defendant to be given a fair trial.
They know that it is integral to their responsibility . . . They guard it
faithfully. The integrity of the jury is an essential feature of our trial
process.2
However, the secrecy laws governing jury deliberations mean that we
remain largely ignorant in relation to the deliberation process. These
secrecy laws have been the subject of recent academic discussion3as a
result of the decision in R vMirza; R vConnor and Rollock,4in which the
House of Lords confirmed the common law prohibition on investigating
into jury deliberations. Consequently, only very limited research into
the life of a juror has been possible.5Since the secrecy laws prohibit such
investigation, it is questionable to what extent we can be sure that jurors
* LLB, LLM, Barrister, Lecturer in Law, University of Hertfordshire; e-mail:
N.Haralambous@herts.ac.uk. The author is grateful to Benjamin Race, LLB, MA,
Barrister, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Any errors or
omissions are my own.
1 A. Ashworth and M. Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 3rd edn (Oxford University
Press: Oxford, 2005) 298.
2R vB[2006] EWCA Crim 2692 at [31], per Sir Igor Judge.
3 P. Ferguson, ‘The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: the Confidentiality
Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety’ (2006) 10 E & P 180; N.
Haralambous, ‘Investigating Impropriety in Jury Deliberations: A Recipe for
Disaster?’ (2004) 68 JCL 411; L. McGowan, ‘Trial by Jury: Still a Lamp in the
Dark?’ (2005) 69 JCL 518.
4 [2004] UKHL 2, [2004] 1 AC 1118.
5 G. Winship, ‘Jury Deliberation: an Observation Study’ (2000) 33(4) Group Analysis
547–57 for the results of a project based on the observations of mock jury
deliberations; S. Lloyd-Bostock, Report on Interviews with Jurors in the Jubilee Line
Case, HMCPSI, 12 October 2005.
520
To continue reading
Request your trial