R v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Date | 01 January 1950 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
C.C.A., N.I.
Rex
and
Taylor
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...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
5 cases
-
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;......
-
Clarence Smith v R
...v R (1984) 79 Cr. App. R 220 considered Marr (1989) 90 Cr. App. R 154 applied R v Keane 65 Cr. App. R 247 applied R v Robert Taylor [1950] NI 57 considered R v Shephard [1993] A.C. 380 H.L applied Roberts v R [1968] 13 WIR 50 considered Stephen Stubbs v The Attorney General SCCrApp No. 16......
Get Started for Free