R v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Trial for felony - Murder - Jury - Separating before summing up - Irregularity -Effect on verdict - Miscarriage of justice - Conviction quashed - Whether venire de novo can be ordered - Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland), 1945 (9 10 Geo. 6, c. 15), s. 39.
A jury empanelled in a lengthy trial for murder was lodged each evening in the courthouse. On the third day of the trial the jury sought and obtained the permission of the trial judge to go for an evening drive in a private omnibus for the purpose of fresh air and exercise. The permission was given on condition that the jurors should be in charge of four constables sworn as jury keepers, two of whom were to precede and the other two to follow the jurors during their exercise. In the course of the drive the omnibus stopped at a seaside town where the jurors split into three groups, one of which went into a private room in an hotel for drinks, and each of the other two went for a walk in the course of which they entered a cafe for refreshments. Each group was accompanied by at least one jury keeper, and the evidence of the jury keepers was that none of the jurors conversed with any member of the public except for the purpose of ordering refreshments. On the following evening, without any further permission from the trial judge, nine of the jurors accompanied by three jury keepers went for a drive in a private omnibus to a neighbouring town. The remaining jurors stayed in the courthouse with the other jury keeper. The nine jurors, on arriving at their destination, split into three groups each accompanied by a jury keeper. One group went into a private room in an hotel for drinks. A second group of three jurors went into a shop where one juror spoke to the shopkeeper who was an acquaintance while the other jurors engaged in general conversation with customers in the shop. The jury keeper in charge of this group deposed that no reference to the trial was made by any person After leaving the shop this second group went for a walk and then returned to the lounge bar of an hotel where members of the public were present, but the jurors spoke to no one except when ordering drinks. The third group went for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People (Attorney General) v Heffernan (No. 2)
...and a departure from the recognised procedure in any criminal case where the jury is not allowed to separate. R. v. TaylorDNI [1950] N.I. 57; R. v. O'Neill 3 Cr. & Dix 146 distinguished; R. v. KetteridgeELR[1915] 1 K.B. 467 discussed. The appeal was accordingly allowed; the conviction was q......
-
Brownlee v R
...2 B & Ald 462 [ 106 ER 434]. 54 (1819) 2 B & Ald 462 at 464 [ 106 ER 434 at 435]. 55 Art 293. See also R v Voss [1963] VR 22 at 23–24; R v Gay [1976] VR 577 at 582–583; R v Chaouk [1986] VR 707 at 56 See also s 66 of the Jury Act 1901 (NSW). 57 R v Gay [1976] VR 577 at 583. 58 (1999) 199......
-
HCF v The Queen
...v Western Australia (2014) 250 CLR 473 at 486 [55]. 92 See, eg, R v Ketteridge [1915] 1 KB 467; R v Neal [1949] 2 KB 590; R v Taylor [1950] NI 57; R v Hodgkinson [1954] VLR 140; R v Alexander [1974] 1 WLR 422; [1974] 1 All ER 539; R v Gay [1976] VR 577; Dempster (1980) 71 Cr App R 302;......
-
R v McClenaghan (Fred)
...prejudicial ha d been said. (See also People v Quinn [1965] IR 366, at 378-9) 3 McCadden v HM Advocate 1986 SLT 138, at 140 4 R v Taylor [1950] NI 57, at 72-3; People v Herrernan (No.2) [1951] IR 206 5 R v Taylor at 71 6 R v Taylor at 75. 7 People v McDonagh [2003] 4 IR 417 8 R v Taylor [19......