R v Robinson (Adeline)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE JAMES,"JUDGE CLARKE,JUDGE CLARK |
| Judgment Date | 11 November 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Crim J1111-6 |
| Docket Number | No. 5463/A/73 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 11 November 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Crim J1111-6
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice James
Mr. Justice Phillips
and
Mr. Justice May
No. 5463/A/73
MR. WILLIAMS, Q.C. and MR. S. SOLLEY appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. J. HARMAN, Q.C. and MR. F. EVANS appeared on behalf of the Crown.
This is an appeal against conviction on a point of law. The appellant, Adline Ione Robinson, was convicted on 5th November 1973 at the Central Criminal Court after a trial before His Honour Judge King Hamilton.
The facts giving rise to the charges that were preferred relate to as long ago as the 23rd September 1972. On that date police raided premises upon which it was believed there may be breaches of the Licensing Laws taking place. The evidence was that various officers found drugs and according to then found drugs in the possession of the appellant's husband. The attention of the police to the appellant's husband resulted in the appellant herself intervening, and intervening in a way that resulted in certain officers receiving injuries. The appellant's husband was charged with possessing drugs. The appellant herself was charged with nine offences in all, including two charges of attempting to murder police officers and alternatives of lesser offences, such as wounding with intent or attempting to wound with intent.
Having regard to the narrow compass of the matter before this Court, there is no need to go into the facts giving rise to the charges any further, or indeed to recite any more of the proceedings than that which immediately follow. On 19th July 1973 at the Central Criminal Court, after a trial that lasted, we were told, some seventeen days, before His Honour Judge Clarke, the appellant's husband was acquitted on a charge of possessing a dangerous drug. The jury stated that they had not been able to reach a verdict in respect of the appellant herself, save upon one count. The trial had proceeded on seven of the nine counts in which she was named.
It is relevant to recite precisely what occurred after the jury had been out for nearly five hours and after they had received directions as to the circumstances of returning a majority verdict. They came back into Court and the Foreman announced "We have reached a verdict on two counts, my Lord." The Judge then remarked "Oh, that is all?" and the Foreman replied "Yes." Tiie jury then indicated that they had agreed upon the first count against Mr. Robinson and the Judge said "Very well, I will take that verdict." Then the following exchanges took place:
"THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, have you reached a verdict on which at least ten of you are agreed on the first count of this indictment?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We have.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Do you find the defendant, Gladstone Alexander Robinson, guilty or not guilty?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We find him not guilty.
"JUDGE CLARKEAnd you have been unable to reach a verdict in respect of any of the other counts, except one of them?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes, my Lord.
JUDGE CLARKVery well, I shall discharge you from giving a verdict in respect of the counts involving Mrs. Robinson and her case will be tried again."
The transcript that follows is agreed to be in error, but everyone concerned agrees as to how it should read, namely:
MR. BYZZARD: I am only wondering whether the verdict on which they are agreed —–
JUDGE CLARKNo, I think the best thing is for the matter to be dealt with again. It is only fair for the whole thing concerned; that is the situation concerning Mrs. Robinson."
So it came about that in November 1973 Mrs. Robinson was at the Central Criminal Court facing the same seven charges in relation to which the former jury had been discharged.
At the outset of the proceedings before His Honour Judge King Hamilton, Mr. Williams, who led for the defence of Mrs. Robinson, submitted a plea in bar of a former acquittal or former conviction. That plea was the subject of a long and detailed argument including references to leading authorities, text books and also to decided cases of earlier days and of more modern times. The learned Judge over-ruled the submission, and ruled that there had been no previous acquittal or previous conviction, because there had been no verdict of the jury which had been returned. The submissions made to the Judge are the same submissions that have been made to this Court by Mr. Williams, and it is his submission to ie that the judge misdirected himself in law in the ruling that there had been no former acquittal or conviction.
The position was indeed a curious one, and the researches of learned counsel have not been able to produce any authority in which this precise situation has arisen or indeed in which this precise situation has been canvassed in argument or adverted to in the judgment.
It is accepted that a trial Judge has got a discretion in the exercise of which he can discharge a jury in whose charge the accused has been placed. It is Mr, Williams's submission that there comes a time when that discretion no longer exists. It is said that once the jury have reached their verdict, then the Court has no discretion in the matter, but must accept the verdict that the jury have reached. The step in the proceedings which involves the Foreman of the jury announcing to the Court the decision arrived at by the jury is argued before us to be a matter of form and not of substance. It is argued that the jury are given the duty of considering the evidence and arriving at a conclusion upon it, and that once the jury nave arrived at a conclusion that is their verdict upon which they have agreed, and once they have agreed upon their verdict the court is bound to accept it.
One must remember in this connection that the oath taken by the juryman is to try the issues joined between the Queen and the accused, and to give a true verdict according to the evidence.
At the trial in the course of the submissions made to His Honour Judge King Hamilton, it would appear that reference was made to a number of definitions of the word "verdict". In the course of his ruling, the learned Judge at page 106 of the transcript recites some of these definitions. For instance in Wharton's Law Lexicon it is defined as "Determination of a jury declared to a judge". In Tomlin's dictionary verdict is defined as "The answer of a jury given to a court concerning a matter of fact in any cause committed to their trial". In an American authority, Boviers dictionary, the definition is "The decision made by a jury and returned to the court". In another American authority, that of Black, it is defined as "A true declaration".
Mr. Williams has invited our attention to those authorities which support the proposition that once a jury has returned a verdict then the Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to accept it. The cases of R. v. Yeadon and Birch reported in 1861 Leigh & Cave's Reports 31 and R. v. Lester 27 Criminal Appeal Reports page 8 are those particularly referred to in the course of argument. There are others in the books as well which show that once the jury has returned a verdict, then the Judge cannot say 'I will not have it', provided, of course, it is a verdict that is not ambiguous and provided it is a verdict that can properly be returned upon the indictment they have been considering. But Mr. Williams said, although that in origin is the situation, it by no means follows that up to the time that the jury return the verdict there still exists the discretion under which the jury can be discharged. His argument, almost an assertion if I may be permitted to say so, is that it is common sense that once the jury have agreed to reach their verdict, then that discretion which is vested in the Judge no longer exists.
To support that proposition, although no authority precisely in point can be cited, Mr. Williams does cite and relies upon R. v. Charlotte winsor 10 Cox's Criminal Law Cases 276 and R. v. Charlesworth reported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Others
...it was proper for another judge to take over and supervise the jury's retirement. He also relied on the observations of James LJ in R v Robinson (1974) 60 Cr App R 108 in which that very experienced judge had observed that a conviction or acquittal arose at the proper conclusion of the verd......
-
Darren Turk deceased (by Jasmine Botting) v The Queen
...( R v Gorman (1987) 85 Cr App R 121 at 124). Verdicts must be delivered in open court so that the note has no effect (see, for example, R v Robinson (1974) 60 Cr App R 108 at 113) and it is the verdict that constitutes the conviction for the purposes of the Criminal Appeal Act: see R v Drew......
-
Attorney General v Pan Chi Keung And Others
...7 I.L.R. 149 (13) (1849) 18 L.J.M.C. 189 (14) (1861) Leigh & C. 81 (15) (1938) 27 Cr. App. R. 8 (16) (1869) 2 L.R.P.C. 525 (P.C.) (17) [1975] 1 Q.B. 508 (18) [1982] A.C. 822 (H.L.) (19) [1921] 2 A.C. 299 (H.L.) (20) (1931) 23 Cr. App. R. 16 (21) (1964) 2 Q.B. 1 (C.A.) (22) (1833) 6 C. & P. ......
- R v Lewis