Juries: R. v Mirza; R. v Connor and Rollock

In R. v. Mirza the House of Lords held, (1) dismissing the appeals (Lord Steyn dissenting in part), that it was the common law rule that the court would not investigate or receive evidence about anything said in the course of the jury's deliberations while they were considering their verdict wh...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Criminal law review 2004-12, p.1041
Main Authors: Barsby, Clare, Ashworth, Andrew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Court decisions
Courts of appeals
Human rights
Juries
Jurisdiction
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In R. v. Mirza the House of Lords held, (1) dismissing the appeals (Lord Steyn dissenting in part), that it was the common law rule that the court would not investigate or receive evidence about anything said in the course of the jury's deliberations while they were considering their verdict which was the primary obstacle to the admission of the evidence which the defendants sought to adduce in this case rather than anything to be found in the statute. (2) Per Lord Slynn, Lord Hope, Lord Hobhouse and Lord Rodger, that s.8 of the 1981 Act prohibited obtaining, disclosing or soliciting information relating to jurors' deliberations in the jury room and ordinary rules of statutory construction provided a sufficient vehicle for giving a meaning to the section which would enable the court to do what was necessary in the interests of justice, the court looking for guidance, as to the extent to which any such investigation was permissible, to the limits set by the common law. Section 8 could not properly be read as categorising what the court did in the course of its investigation as a contempt of the court itself. A commentary on the case is included.
ISSN:0011-135X