R v Box
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,MR. JUSTICE SACHS |
| Judgment Date | 29 July 1963 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1963] EWCA Crim J0729-1 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal |
| Docket Number | 1113/63 |
| Date | 29 July 1963 |
[1963] EWCA Crim J0729-1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Royal Courts of Justice
The Lord Chief Justice of England (Lord Parker)
Mr. Justice Salmon
Mr. Justice Sachs
Mr. Justice Edmund Davies
and
Mr. Justice Widgery
1113/63
MR. E. LYONS appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR. H. G. BENNETT appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
These proceedings come before this Court on a reference by the Hone Secretary under Section 19(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. The history of the matter is this. At Leeds City Sessions the Appellant Neville Box pleaded guilty and his brother John Box was convicted of officebreaking with intent. Both Appellants were further convicted of putting explosives in a building. John Box was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment and Neville to 4 years' imprisonment. They applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and those applications wore refused by this Court, that refusal being final. As a result of new evidence which it was said had come to light since the conviction, Petitions were put in to the Hone Secretary, and the Hone Secretary, as I have said, has referred the matter to this. Court.
So far as the facts are concerned, it is sufficient to say that there was overwhelming evidence against these two Appellants. It was for that reason that the Court on the previous occasion refused their applications. Before this Court, Mr. Lyons, to whom the Court is indebted for his argument, has sought to call evidence in regard to the state of mind of the foreman of the Jury at the time when ho was sworn as a Juryman. In fairness to Mr. Lyons, he has very properly not sought to call evidence as to what happened either in the jury box or in the jury room or in the luncheon adjournment as to conversations between Jurors. That the Court will not admit evidence of any such conversations is clear from a long lino of cases of which the most recent is that of Thompson, reported in Volume 46 Criminal Appeal Reports at 72.
As to the witnesses which ho desires to call as to the Foreman's state of mind when he was sworn, application was made to call two men, Ledger and Moore, to whom it is said that the Foreman spoke during the luncheon adjournment in the Victoria Hotel in Leeds, Moore and Ledger being ordinary members of the public and not Jurymen. Having seen their statements in the form of affidavits, this Court was of opinion that they could not assist as to the Foreman's state of mind at the relevant time, namely before entering upon the hearing of these trials, and accordingly those applications were refused.
So far as the Foreman himself is concerned, an application was made to call him, and while there is no concluded decision in the reports as to the principle to be applied in regard to such a case, it is to be observed that at the end of his judgment in the case of Syne, reported in 10 Criminal Appeal Reports, page 284, Mr. Justice Bankes as he then was said this: "It may be unwise to make such a statement, but unless he says that whatever the evidence may be he is determined to come to a certain result, it cannot be a ground for interfering with the conviction". It is to be observed that Mr. Justice Bankes was not stating that as a principle but stating that as the high water nark of the evidence which would be necessary before the Court could possibly interfere with the conviction in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R v Gough (Robert)
-
R v Gough
...for me to consider any more of the earlier cases concerned with allegation of bias on the part of jurors. I only wish to say that Reg. v. Box [1964] 1 Q.B. 430, to which some criticism was directed in the course of argument, appears to have been concerned primarily with an allegation of ac......
-
R v Bakish Alla Khan ; R v Lewthwaite
...against the defendant, requiring the discharge of the jury or juror, or the quashing of a conviction if it comes to light after the trial. – R v Box [1964] 1 QB 430; R v Docherty [1999] 1 Cr App R 274. In the latter case Roch LJ, giving judgment of the court, after referring to R v Gough,......
-
R. v. Gough (R.B.), (1993) 155 N.R. 81 (HL)
...Rep. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Morris (Otherwise Williams) (1990), 93 Cr. App. Rep. 102, refd to. [para. 24]. R. v. Box, [1964] 1 Q.B. 430, refd to. [para. Ardahalian v. Unifert International S.A. (The Elissar), [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 84, refd to. [para. 26]. Bremer Handelsgesel......
-
The Criminal Jury in England and Scotland: The Confidentiality Principle and the Investigation of Impropriety
...on at [2005] Crim LR 574–5 (Nick Taylor). 103 The conviction was quashed on appeal.104 See R v Thompson [1962] 1 All ER 65; R v Box [1964] 1 QB 430; R v Hood [1968] 1 WLR 773; R v (1969) 53 Cr App R 466; Swankie v HM Advocate 1999 SC (JC) 40; McLean v HM Advocate 2001 SLT 1096. 105 This was......
-
OPEN JUSTICE, 'BACK-TO-BACK' TRIALS AND JUROR PREJUDICE: EXAMINING THE SUPPRESSION ORDER IN THE TRIAL OF GEORGE PELL.
...[96]); R v Booth [1983] 1 VR 39, 44 (Lush J, Young CJ agreeing at 40); R v Hood [1968] 1 WLR 773, 776 (Cusack J for the Court); R v Box [1964] 1 QB 430, 434-5 (Lord Parker CJ); R v Thompson [1962] 1 All ER 65, 66 (Lord Parker CJ for the Court); R v Armstrong [1951] 2 All ER 219, 21920 (Lyns......