R v Miah ; R v Akhbar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1996 |
| Date | 18 December 1996 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Criminal evidence - bar to evidence about jury
It was a settled rule of long standing that an appellate court would not receive evidence from jurors about discussions or other matters that took place in the jury box or jury room concerning the cases in which they were acting. The barrier to the reception of such material was not to be found in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 but in a long line of authorities.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Johnson and Mr Justice Timothy Walker) so stated on December 9 in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeals of Badrul Hussain Miah and Showkat Akhbar against their convictions on October 31, 1995 at the Central Criminal Court (Mrs Justice Steel and a jury). Miah was convicted of conspiracy to inflict grievous bodily harm, violent disorder and murder; Akhbar was convicted of violent disorder.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY, giving reasons for the court's refusal on November 8 to adjourn and order an investigation into allegations made in a document prepared by an alleged juror, said that submissions made to their Lordships seemed to have been based upon the false proposition that the court should be prepared to consider any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Scotcher
...of the jury are sacrosanct. Indeed the rule is, if anything, wider than the prohibition in section 8. 32 In R v Miah and Akhbar [1997] 2 Cr App R 12 Kennedy L.J. giving the reserved judgment of the court said it was a settled rule of long standing that an appellate court could not receive e......
-
R v Sajid Qureshi
...that before the matter proceeded any further it was necessary to have regard to what was said by this court in R v Miah and Akhbar [1997] 2 Cr App R 12 as to the propriety after verdict of making any inquiries of jurors as to what was said by individual members of the jury, not only during ......
-
R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock
...per Atkin LJ; Attorney General v New Statesman and National Publishing Company Ltd [1981] QB 1,10, per Lord Widgery CJ; R v Miah [1997] 2 Cr App R 12, 18 - 19, per Kennedy LJ; Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 311, 324B, per Lord Clyde; R v Qureshi [2002] 1 WLR 518, ......
- Dr. John Roylance (Petitioner) v The General Medical Council
-
Exemplum Habemus: Reflections on the Judicial Studies Board's Specimen Directions
...tobring to the attention of the jury are in fact brought to their attentionadequately by the judge in the course of his summing-up’.76 [1997] 2 Cr App R 12, per Kennedy LJ.77 5 June 1998, Transcript No. 97/7318/X3, per Auld LJ. See Munday, above n. 56esp. at 163.The Journal of Criminal Orde......
-
Table of Cases
.... . . . . 49, 323R v McGregor [1968] 1 QB 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320R v McKeough [2003] NSWCCA 385 . . . . . . . . . 93R v Miah [1997] 2 Cr App R 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344R v Miller [1952] 2 All ER 667. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129R v Mirza [2004] UKHL 2. . . . . . . . . . . ......
-
Table of Cases
...Hunter and Callaghan [1992] 2 All ER 417, (1991) 93 Cr App R 287, (1991) 141 NLJ 456, CA 371 R v Miah (Badrul); R v Akhbar (Showkat) [1997] 2 Cr App R 12, [1997] Crim LR 351, CA 349 R v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith [1996] QB 517, [1996] 2 WLR 305, [1996] 1 All ER 257, CA 248 R v Mirza......
-
Noticeboard
...disclosure of344 E & PNOTICEBOARD pre-deliberation communications between jurors. There is English precedent thatit does (see RvMiah [1997] 2 Cr App R 12), but in Mirza there was no agreementabout this (Lords Steyn, Hope and Hobhouse [2004] UKHL 2 at [14], [16], [97], [107],[134] versus Lor......