McTeer v HM Advocate
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 25 February 2003 |
| Docket Number | No 8 |
| Date | 25 February 2003 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
JC
L J-C (Gill), Lord Kirkwood and Lord Macfadyen
Justiciary - Procedure - Solemn procedure - Trial - Jury - Member of jury elected as foreman not disclosing previous connection of accused with his son - Accused having previously assaulted his son and remained at enmity with him thereafter - Whether trial fair - Whether miscarriage of justice
The appellants were convicted of a concerted attack upon a victim to his severe injury. Following conviction of the appellants, the first appellant complained that the foreman of the jury knew him. Some years prior to the trial, the families of the first appellant and the foreman had lived near each other and the first appellant had been friendly with the son of the foreman. The first appellant assaulted the foreman's son and was referred to a children's hearing. The first appellant admitted the ground of referral but thereafter fought with the foreman's son on at least two occasions. A leaflet had been sent out with the jury citations that advised that if the accused was known to a juror, the clerk of court should be informed of this immediately. The foreman did not advise the clerk of court that he knew the first appellant. The first appellant did not raise the matter prior to conclusion of the trial. The advocate depute for the Crown conceded that if the first appellant's appeal fell to be granted, the other appellants' convictions should likewise be quashed.
Held: (1) that the question of whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred as a result of a juror sitting in a trial who would have been excused had his connection with the case been known required to be decided on the facts of the individual case (p 68G); (2) that as the foreman had an obligation to disclose the previous connection between the first appellant and his son, a fair-minded and objective observer would consider that the verdict lacked the appearance of impartiality and there had accordingly been a miscarriage of justice (pp 68H-69B); and appeals granted.
Pullar v HM AdvocateUNK 1993 SCCR 514 distinguished.
The appellants were charged with a concerted assault to severe injury. Following trial, the four appellants were convicted.
The pannels thereafter appealed to the High Court of Justiciary against conviction.
Cases referred to:
Hoekstra v HM Advocate (No 2)SC 2000 JC 387
Pullar v HM AdvocateUNK 1993 SCCR 514
Pullar v UKUNK 1996 SCCR 755
Rimmer, PetitionerUNK 2002 SCCR 1
Russell v HM AdvocateUNK1991 SCCR 790
The cause called before the High Court of Justiciary, comprising the Lord Justice-Clerk (Gill), Lord Kirkwood and Lord Macfadyen for a hearing on 25 February 2003. The opinion of the Court was delivered on 11 March 2003.
OPINION OF THE COURT - [1] The appellants were convicted at Hamilton Sheriff Court on 1 February 2002 after trial before a sheriff and jury of the following charge:
'On 7 October 2000, at Westwood Road, East Kilbride, you Christopher Muir, … Robert McTeer, Ben Ahern and Ross Steven did while acting along with others whose identities are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank Carberry V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...jurisprudence in this area was no different from Scots law. Apparent bias inevitably led to a miscarriage of justice (McTeer v HM Advocate 2003 JC 66; McLean v HM Advocate 2001 SLT 1096). It could not be cured on the basis that the jury were assumed to follow a direction to proceed solely u......
-
Alexander Touati+russell Gilfillan V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...186 McIntyre v HM AdvocateUNK 1981 SCCR 117 McKinnon v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2003 JC 29; 2003 SLT 281; 2003 SCCR 224 McTeer v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2003 JC 66; 2003 SLT 453; 2003 SCCR 282 R v CouttsUNKWLRUNKUNK [2006] UKHL 39; [2006] 1 WLR 2154; [2006] 4 All ER 353; [2007] 1 Cr App R 6 Robertson v HM......
-
Adam v HM Advocate
...1985 JC 98; 1986 SLT 138; 1985 SCCR 282 McColl v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1989 JC 80; 1989 SLT 691; 1989 SCCR 229 McTeer v HM AdvocateSCUNK 2003 JC 66; 2003 SLT 453; 2003 SCCR 282 Pullar v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1993 JC 126; 1993 SCCR 514 Russell v HM AdvocateSCUNK 1991 JC 194; 1992 SLT 25; 1991 SCCR 790......
-
Elizabeth Clow V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...had been seen to have been done. Reference was made to Gray v H.M. Advocate 2005 J.C. 233, 2005 S.C.C.R. 106 and McTeer v H.M. Advocate 2003 J.C. 66, 2003 S.C.C.R. 282. A premature conclusion as to guilt would vitiate a subsequent determination (as, for example, most recently in Reid v Barb......
-
The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: The Confidentiality Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety
...a jury, see Robertson v HM Advocate 1996 SCCR 243, in which some of the jurors were sentthreatening letters. 79 McTeer v HM Advocate 2003 JC 66, discussed further below.80 In Gray v HM Advocate 1994 JC 105 it was alleged that two of the women jurors had become involved with the appellant’s ......