McCarthy, R (on the application of), R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a conviction arising from a criminal charge related to a collision. The deputy clerk to the justices was also a member of the firm of solicitors conducting civil proceedings for damages against the applicant concerning the same collision. During the justices' deliberations, the deputy clerk retired with them, carrying notes of the evidence, although the justices reached a conclusion without consulting him. The applicant challenged the conviction on the ground that the deputy clerk's dual role created an appearance of bias or improper interference.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the deputy clerk’s dual role as both a member of the solicitor firm involved in related civil proceedings and clerk to the justices rendered him unfit to act in the criminal matter.
2. Whether the presence of the deputy clerk during the justices’ consultation, despite no evidence of improper advice or influence, constituted a procedural irregularity affecting the validity of the conviction.
3. Whether the applicant or his solicitor waived the irregularity by not raising the issue at trial and only seeking to rely on it after conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the fundamental principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The critical question was not whether the deputy clerk actually influenced the justices, but whether his dual role created an appearance of possible impropriety or bias. The court found that the deputy clerk’s position in the solicitor firm handling the related civil case was incompatible with his role as clerk to the justices in the criminal proceedings. This created a manifest contradiction and an appearance of improper interference, regardless of any actual conduct. The court rejected any inquiry into whether the clerk gave advice or influenced the justices, focusing solely on the impropriety of his presence during deliberations. Furthermore, the court considered whether the applicant had waived this irregularity by failing to raise it before conviction. It concluded that no such waiver occurred. Consequently, the conviction was quashed based on this procedural irregularity.

Holding and Implications

The court made the rule absolute and quashed the conviction.

The direct effect of this decision is the quashing of the applicant’s conviction due to procedural impropriety linked to the deputy clerk’s dual role. The court did not establish new precedent but reaffirmed the established principle that justice must be manifestly impartial and free from even the appearance of bias or improper influence.