Quarterly Summary
| Date | 01 July 1965 |
| Published date | 01 July 1965 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836502900311 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the
cases
here summarised will be
gicen
in our next issue.-Editor)
JUROR NOT PREJUDICED
R. v. Brookes
TWO
co-defendants,whileincustodypendingand duringtrial
1at quarter sessions, were driven from prison to court in a
private hired car, and spoke together during the journeys.
The
driver, who could hear conversation
but
who stated that
he had no recollection of a word that was said, knew that he
would be sitting on the jury.
In
fact he acted as foreman
during the trial.
The
defendant knew that the driver was a
juror
and the foreman,
but
raised no objection at the trial.
The
defendant applied for leave to appeal against his con-
viction on the ground (inter alia) that his trial was prejudiced
because his discussion of the case with the co-defendant must
have been overheard by the driver.
The
Court of Criminal
Appeal said that it was wholly wrong for the juror to have
driven the car with the defendants in it when he knew that he
himself was going to sit on the jury. But, in the circumstances,
no objection having been raised during the trial, leave to
appeal was refused. (109 Sol. J. 52.)
MISPRISION OF FELONY
R. v. King
In
allowing an appeal against a conviction of misprision
of felony the Court held that the offence had apparently been
committed
but
there had been a misdirection of the
jury
as to
the
law applicable. When questioned by the police the appel-
lant did not merely keep silent, he made a positive misstate-
ment bearing on
the
offence of larceny which was being
inquired into.
The
duty to make full disclosure of a felony
had to have some limit and the Court laid down that non-
225
To continue reading
Request your trial