- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Thompson & Ors v R
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns six consolidated appeals arising from allegations of jury irregularity following criminal trials in various Crown Courts. The cases involve claims of misconduct or irregularities during jury deliberations or related jury conduct after verdicts were returned. The common procedural context is that these allegations emerged post-verdict, placing the Court of Appeal in the position of investigating potential jury irregularities which the trial judges could no longer address. The cases include a range of offences such as grievous bodily harm with intent, possession of class A drugs with intent to supply, murder, rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and possession of a bladed article on school premises.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether alleged jury irregularities occurring after the verdict, including use of extraneous material such as internet research, juror misconduct, or improper communications, justify inquiry by the Court of Appeal or quashing of convictions.
- The scope and limits of permissible investigation into jury deliberations post-verdict, considering the principle of jury confidentiality and the rule of inadmissibility of evidence relating to jury deliberations.
- The application and interpretation of the exceptions to the rule against inquiry into jury deliberations, specifically regarding complete repudiation of the jury oath and introduction of extraneous material.
- The adequacy of trial judge directions to juries concerning their collective responsibility, use of the internet, and conduct during deliberations.
- Whether specific trial judge decisions regarding jury management, discharge applications, and directions on legal issues such as consent and self-defence affected the safety of convictions.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Smith [2005] 1 WLR 704 | Trial judge’s power to address jury irregularities during trial, including giving directions or discharging jurors. | Referenced to illustrate normal trial judge interventions to cure irregularities during trial. |
| R v Adams [2007] 1 Cr App R 449 | Confidentiality of jury deliberations and prohibition on inquiry post-verdict except with court authority. | Confirmed the principle that inquiries into jury deliberations are generally forbidden territory post-verdict. |
| R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] 1 AC 1118 | Rule of inadmissibility of evidence about jury deliberations; exceptions to this rule. | Explained the legal foundation for excluding evidence of jury deliberations and defined narrow exceptions. |
| R v Karakaya [2005] 2 Cr App R 5 | Impact of extraneous material, including internet use, on fairness of trial and safety of conviction. | Applied to assess whether internet research by jurors rendered convictions unsafe. |
| R v Marshall and Crump [2007] EWCA Crim 35 | Use of extraneous material by jurors and its effect on trial fairness. | Referenced as part of the jurisprudence on jury irregularities involving extraneous material. |
| R v Thakrar [2008] EWCA Crim 2359 | Similar principles concerning extraneous material and jury misconduct. | Used to support the court’s approach to investigating internet use by jurors. |
| R v B [2008] NZCA 130 | International authority on jury conduct and extraneous material. | Referenced to illustrate international experience with internet use by jurors. |
| R v DT (unreported, 17 February 2000) | Distinction between "consent" and "want" in jury directions on sexual offences. | Considered in evaluating trial judge’s directions on consent in a rape case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by affirming the rarity of jury irregularities and the principle that trial judges are generally expected to address any irregularities during the trial. Post-verdict allegations require the Court of Appeal to investigate, subject to the fundamental rule protecting jury deliberation confidentiality, as established in R v Mirza and related authorities.
The Court reiterated the two narrow exceptions allowing investigation: (1) complete repudiation of the jury oath (e.g., deciding verdicts by chance), and (2) introduction of extraneous material into deliberations, which may render a verdict unsafe.
The Court emphasized the collective responsibility of jurors from the moment they are sworn, including the duty to report misconduct or irregularities immediately to the trial judge. It noted that jurors often lack clarity on this responsibility and recommended enhanced pre-trial and trial directions to jurors, including explicit prohibitions on internet research and outside communications.
Regarding the specific cases:
- In the first case, allegations of internet research by a juror were found to be an irregularity but did not render the verdict unsafe because there was no evidence that the verdict was influenced by such research.
- In the second case, complaints about juror pressure during deliberations were inadmissible under the rule of confidentiality and did not establish grounds for appeal.
- The third case involved allegations of outside contact with jurors, which after thorough investigation, were found unsubstantiated, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
- In the fourth case, the Court found no misdirection on consent and no unsafe verdict despite concerns about jury knowledge of a second trial, concluding the trial judge’s management was appropriate.
- The fifth case involved a juror conducting unauthorized experiments relevant to the evidence. The trial judge’s failure to investigate or give directions was deemed improper, constituting an irregularity. Given the absence of other supporting evidence, the conviction was quashed as unsafe.
- In the sixth case, a post-verdict letter from a juror was inadmissible, and the absence of written self-defence directions did not undermine the conviction’s safety.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED in all appeals except one.
The Court dismissed five appeals, finding no sufficient evidence of jury irregularity affecting verdict safety or no admissible grounds for appeal. One conviction was quashed due to a juror’s unauthorized experiment introducing extraneous material without proper judicial intervention, creating reasonable doubt as to the conviction’s safety.
The decision reinforces the strict application of the rule protecting jury deliberations from inquiry, the limited exceptions permitting investigation, and the importance of trial judges providing clear, unequivocal directions about jurors’ collective responsibility and prohibitions on extraneous research or communications, including internet use. It also underscores the necessity for trial judges to investigate promptly any reported irregularities during deliberations to preserve trial fairness.
No new legal principles were established; rather, the Court applied existing jurisprudence to the facts of each case, emphasizing procedural safeguards and the integrity of the jury system.
Alert