R v Maggs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 1990 |
| Date | 27 February 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hirst and Mr Justice Kennedy
Jury - fresh evidence - material irregularity
A surveyor's tape given to a jury in retirement without objection or inquiry about the reason why they wanted a tape measure was not giving them fresh evidence or equipment enabling them to carry out unsupervised scientific experiments and so did not constitute a material irregularity invalidating a conviction for causing death by reckless driving, contrary to section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, as substituted by section 50(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
The Court of Appeal so held when dismissing an appeal by Edward Maggs, aged 54, a taxi driver, of Avenue Court, Alverstone, Gosport, against conviction after a four-day trial at Lewes Crown Court (Mr Justice McCowan and a jury) of causing the death by reckless driving in September 1988 of Dennis Doughty, aged 59, an experienced racing cyclist.
He was fined £250 and disqualified for three years. An appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Mr Aftab Jafferjee, who did not appear below, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Charles Kemp for the Crown.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appellant and the cyclist were travelling in the same direction on the A27, a new road near Chichester at about 7.30am.
The appellant did not give evidence. The accuracy of his version of events in a statement to the police, which was before the jury, was somewhat diminished by an examination of his taxi and the cycle. Also before the jury in retirement was a sketch map of the road, with measurements in metres.
After they had retired, having been given a direction about which no complaint was made on appeal, they sent a message asking if they could borrow a tape measure. Neither counsel raised any objection. Inquiries were made and the first available object was a surveyor's tape. That was handed to them.
Mr Jafferjee submitted that that was a material irregularity within section 2(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and invalidated the conviction. The point at issue was whether there was a material irregularity and, if so, whether the case was a proper one for dismissing the appeal by application of the proviso to section 2(1) on the ground that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.
His Lordship said that it was well established that no fresh evidence could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Re W (A Minor) (Adoption: Homosexual adopter)
-
R v Young (Stephen)
...Lordships considered R v Stewart (Angela)UNK ((1989) 89 Cr App R 273); Rv HigginsTLR (The Times February 16, 1989); R v MaggsUNK ((1990) 91 Cr App R 243); R v Gearing (Note)WLR ((1968) 1 WLR 345); R v LawrenceWLR ((1968) 1 WLR 341); R v CorlessUNK (1972) 56 Cr App R 341); R v Davis (George)......
-
R v Ian David Oliver
...is asking a jury to separate, nor is there any practice direction on this matter. 29 The starting point is the principle set out in 30 R v. Davis 62 Cr.App.R. 194 . There the appellant had been convicted of robbery. The facts of the actual case are irrelevant, save to say that after the j......
-
R v Harmohinder Sanghera
...they have retired. Thus it is impermissible to give the jury equipment with which to conduct their own experiments in their room: Maggs 91 Cr.App.R 243, 245, explaining Stewart and Sappleton 89 Cr.App.R 273, where the judge acceded to a jury request for scales with which to weigh drugs and ......