R v Goodson (Sean Eric)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JAMES |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1975 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1975] EWCA Crim J0123-7 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 3571/B/74 |
| Date | 23 January 1975 |
[1975] EWCA Crim J0123-7
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Scarman
Lord Justice James
and
Mr. Justice Boreham
No. 3571/B/74
MR. COX appeared for the Appellant.
MR. G. PARKINS appeared for the Crown.
On the 13th May of 1974, at the Crown Court at Norwich, Sean Eric Goodson, the Appellant, pleaded guilty to an offence of burglary and pleaded guilty to two offences of unlawful possession of firearms. He was convicted by a jury of one further charge of burglary and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment on his pleas of guilty and that conviction, which sentences are matters which are not immediately involved in this judgment. He appeals against conviction for burglary by leave of the single Judge and the short point, taken out of a number of grounds of appeal submitted, is that there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial, the result of which should be that this conviction should be quashed. There is no need in the circumstances to cite the details of the offence of burglary which was alleged to have taken place on the 13th December, 1973, involving the taking of jewellery and other articles from a house of a Mr. Mrs. Mason in Norfolk while those persons were absent from their home in hospital.
The material irregularity related to the conduct of one of the jurors after the jury had retired at the end of the summing-up to consider their verdict. It appears that the jury having retired at 3.38 in the afternoon; about, or just over, an hour later, counsel appearing for the Crown, Mr. Parkins, in going to make a telephone call want to a telephone booth only six or seven feet away from the door of the jury room in a public corridor, where he recognised a member of the jury in the course of using the telephone. The jury bailiff was present observing that which was taking place. Mr. Parkins, rightly if we may say so, informed the Court of what he had observed and rightly took steps which resulted in that juryman not returning to the jury room.
The jury returned just over an hour later. At that time the Court, having been informed of the incident to which I have referred, investigated what had taken place by asking the juror a number of questions. The facts elicited appeared to be these. The juror desired to speak to "people" on the telephone. He had, by inference, spoken to the jury bailiff and obtained the jury bailiff's permission to do so. He had left the other jurors in the jury room and had spoken to "people" on the telephone but whatever was said by him or to him had not been communicated to the remaining 11 jurors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Hambery
...the accused "of the voice of one juryman in the jury room in the consideration of the verdict" (see the judgment of James, L.J. in R. v. Goodson, (1975) 60 Cr. App. R. 266 at p. 268). This is a loss which Parliament must have contemplated would happen and is one which, in our judgment, an ......
-
Grant (Steven( v R
...judge discharged the juror in the absence of any of these factors. In support of these submissions she cited, among others, the cases of: R v Goodson (1975) 1 WLR 549, Yasseen and Thomas v The State (1990) 44 WIR 219, R v Hambery [1977] 3 All ER 561, The State v Baichandeen (1979) 26 WIR 21......
-
Ritch v R
...Sol. Jo. 508; 53 Cr. App. R. 524, considered. (6) R. v. Falconer-AtleeUNK(1973), 58 Cr. App. R. 348, considered. (7) R. v. Goodson, [1975] 1 W.L.R. 549; [1975] 1 All E.R. 760; (1975), 119 Sol. Jo. 255; 60 Cr. App. R. 266; [1975] Crim. L.R. 656, considered. (8) R. v. Ketteridge, [1915] 1 K.B......
-
R v Tharakan
...Court, there is a mistrial, and this Court will not consider whether the appellant was prejudiced by the juror's action or not." 41 In R. v. Goodson (1974) 60 Cr.App.R. 266, the headnote reads: "After the retirement of the jury one juror separated himself from the other eleven and, accompan......