- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Regina v. Connor & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
The document consolidates two criminal appeals that reached the House of Lords. In the first, Appellant 1 (originally convicted of multiple indecent-assault counts) sought to overturn his conviction after a juror wrote to defence counsel alleging that racial prejudice had infected the jury’s private deliberations. In the second, Appellants 2 and 3 (convicted of wounding with intent) relied on a juror’s post-trial letter claiming that the majority had convicted both men merely “to teach them a lesson” and to end protracted discussion.
Both sets of appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which felt bound by its earlier ruling in R v Qureshi that the common-law rule of jury-room secrecy renders such evidence inadmissible. The Court nonetheless certified two questions of general public importance concerning: (1) the interaction between that common-law rule and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”); and (2) the effect of section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The House of Lords granted leave and, after full argument, delivered the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, despite Article 6(1) ECHR, evidence from a juror alleging bias or other impropriety during deliberations is always inadmissible under the common-law rule of jury secrecy.
- Whether section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 prevents an appellate court from receiving and acting upon such evidence; and, if so, whether that provision is compatible with Article 6(1).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The absolute secrecy rule should yield where cogent post-verdict evidence shows a real risk that the jury was not impartial, especially in cases of alleged racism or plainly irrational decision-making.
- Section 8 of the 1981 Act must be read down, or declared incompatible, if it blocks admission of such evidence and thereby violates Article 6(1).
Respondents’ Arguments (Director of Public Prosecutions & Lord Chancellor)
- The existing common-law rule is crucial to frank and orderly jury deliberations; tolerating a small residual risk of injustice is necessary to preserve the integrity of the jury system.
- Section 8 does not fetter a court’s power to ensure a fair trial; but even apart from that statute, the evidence is inadmissible at common law and Article 6(1) is not infringed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Qureshi [2002] 1 WLR 518 | Affirmed an absolute rule excluding evidence of jury deliberations | Court of Appeal felt bound by it; House of Lords reconsidered but ultimately upheld its effect |
| Gregory v United Kingdom (1997) 25 EHRR 577 | ECHR accepted secrecy of deliberations as a “crucial and legitimate” feature of English law | Relied on to show current rule compatible with Article 6(1) |
| Sander v United Kingdom (2000) 31 EHRR 1003 | Trial judge must react robustly to in-trial allegations of juror racism | Cited to illustrate that impropriety arising before verdict can be investigated |
| Remli v France (1996) 22 EHRR 253 | National court must investigate arguable claims of juror bias raised during trial | Distinguished; concerned pre-verdict allegation, not post-verdict evidence of deliberations |
| R v Young (Stephen) [1995] QB 324 | Exception: evidence admitted where jury employed an ouija board (extraneous influence) | Used to contrast extrinsic irregularities, which remain admissible, with intrinsic deliberations |
| Attorney General v Associated Newspapers [1994] 2 AC 238 | Wide meaning of “disclose” under s.8 Contempt of Court Act 1981 | Noted but held not to bar courts from obtaining information for their own purposes |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Delivering the leading majority opinions, Judge Hope and Judge Hobhouse held:
- The presumption of juror impartiality is fundamental; the secrecy rule is designed to protect it by encouraging candid debate, safeguarding jurors from harassment, and lending finality to verdicts.
- The European jurisprudence (Gregory, Sander) recognises the rule’s legitimacy; Article 6(1) does not compel courts to investigate the internal mechanics of deliberations once a verdict is returned.
- Section 8 of the 1981 Act, properly construed, is aimed at third-party publication and does not inhibit a court’s inherent power to investigate extrinsic irregularities; in any event, the decisive bar to admission remains the common-law rule, not the statute.
- Evidential and practical difficulties—risk of fabricated allegations, endless post-verdict inquiries, and erosion of juror confidence—justify maintaining the categorical exclusion.
- Established exceptions (e.g., bribery, outside interference) remain intact; only those extrinsic matters may be proved.
Judge Steyn (dissenting) would have relaxed the rule, admitting juror evidence in “exceptional” cases demonstrating a real risk of bias; applying that test, he would have quashed Appellant 1’s conviction.
Holding and Implications
APPEALS DISMISSED (by majority).
Both convictions stand. The House confirms that evidence concerning intrinsic jury deliberations remains inadmissible; section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not impede a court’s own inquiries, but neither Article 6(1) nor domestic statute requires departure from the common-law secrecy rule. The decision preserves the existing framework, leaving any broader reform—such as that proposed by Lord Justice Auld—to Parliament. No new precedent is created; rather, longstanding principles are reaffirmed.
Alert