FACULTY OF LAW & GOVERNMENT

Department of Law

NAME OF STUDENT : Adrienne Sena

STUDENT ID NUMBER : B 1302604

SUBJECT NAME : Legal Methods and Systems

SUBJECT CODE : DL 1

NAME OF EXAMINER : Dr. Jaspal Kaur

WORD COUNT : 3309 words

 INDEX

No. Contents Page Number

1. Table of Authorities 3-4

2. Question 5

3. Answer 6-19

4. Bibliography 20-23

5. List of References 24-26

6. Turn-It-In Report 27-44

Table of Authorities
2
Statues and Legislation
No. Statute/Legislation Page Number

1. European Convention of Human Rights 6

2. Human Rights Act 1998 8

3. Contempt of Court Act 1981 8

4. Criminal Justice Act 2003 15

5. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 16

6. Juries Act 1974 16

Cases
No. Case Name Citation Page Number

1. R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37 7

2. R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] AC 1118 8

3. R v Qureshi [2001] EWCA Crim 8

1807

4. Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] 3 All ER 1 8

5. R v Smith (Patrick) [2005] UKHL 129 9

6. R v Thakrar (Ketan) [2008] EWCA Crim 9

2359

7. R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 9

346

3
8. R v Abdroikov (Nurlon) [2007] UKHL 37 9

9. Gregory v United Kingdom [1995] 19 E.H.R.R. 10

CD82

10. Sander v United Kindgom [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 10

44

11. R v Brown [2001] EWCA Crim 11

2828

12. R v Blackwell [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 11

625

13. R v Rayment and Others [2005] 11

14. R v Young (Stephen) [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 13

379

15. R v Hawkins (Leslie John) [2005] EWCA Crim 14

2842

16. Re Medicaments and Related [2001] CA 16

Classes of Goods (No.2)

17. R v Brownlow [1980] Q.B. 530 17

4
 Question
“The prohibition on receipt of evidence takes effect from the moment the jury is

empanelled and covers not only what took place in the jury box or the jury room but

covers any statement as to what the jury believed the attitude of other jurors to be as

deduced from their behaviour in the box or as to what the juror thought the effect of

the verdict to be. Once the verdict is given in the presence of all the other jurors then

that is the end of the matter and the Court of Appeal will not inquire as to whether the

verdict truly reflects what the jurors thought.”

- As per Lord Slynn in R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock

[2004] AC 1118 at 1143.

The prohibition on the admission of evidence of jury deliberations in a criminal trial is

a common law rule which has been upheld by the House of Lords and the Court of

Appeal. The issue that often surrounds this rule is the inquiry by the court into jury

deliberation when there is a situation of jury impropriety.

With reference to cases, highlight incidences of jury impropriety. Consider and

evaluate the current judicial approach to dealing with juror impropriety.

5
 Answer
INTRODUCTION

A jury is a bench consisting of 12 lay people that are randomly chosen. In the

United Kingdom, the jury consists of citizens registered on the electoral system, has

residence for 5 years in the UK and are ranged between ages 18 to 70. 1 The

‘sacrosanctness of trial by jury’ is said by Lowe to be one of the celebrated ideals in

the jurisdictions of common law. They are under an oath to ‘…faithfully try the

defendant and give a true verdict according to evidence’, whereby jurors are to base

their verdict solely on facts available in the hearing only. As said by Slapper and

Kelly in “The English Legal System”, a jury is important as they [possess the power

on deciding the outcome of a case based on the facts provided as well as the

directions of the judge]2 , in which to some, is seen as a way to instil democracy into

a system. Over the years, the onus of juries had evolved , from being responsible

over the community to settling civil conflicts and finally to the ‘witnesses of fact’ that

deliberate on facts based on their own knowledge. They are assumed to be an

impartial and fair body that act in accordance with Article 6 of the ECHR whereby it

states that ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time

by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law’ 3, and thus have become

a judge based on the facts of the case.

1
Gary Slapper & David Kelly, The English Legal System, 14 th ed, Routledge, page 509
2
(n 1) 511
3
s 1 Article 6 of the European Conventions of Human Rights

6
JURY: IS IT REALLY A LAMP THAT SHOWS THAT FREEDOM LIVES?

In reality, the idea of a jury as an instrument that governs justice may not be

as ideal as it seems. This is because many incidences of jury impropriety and

misconduct have emerged over the years. As humans, it is only normal for us to

contain some form of biasness, whether we are conscious about it or not. This was

highlighted in the case of R-v-Abdroikov4 whereby Lords Rodger and Carswell

commented that most jurors have prejudices of different sorts and thus held in that

case that ‘universal eligibility for jury service was…appropriate’. The focal point here

is that the problem of jury impropriety is not unusual but should be reduced as it

undermines the fairness and impartiality that a jury system is said to provide. The

examples of incidences where jury impropriety may stem from include jury secrecy,

admission of extraneous materials during deliberation, biasness, jury nobbling, long

and complex frauds, lack of understanding by jurors, influences by social media and

more.

THE DIMMED LAMP

4
[2007] UKHL 37

7
 As mentioned above, jury impropriety stems from many sources including jury

secrecy. Ultimately, jury secrecy aims to promote frank discussions, reinstate public

confidence and protect the jury. It is a common law rule that prohibits the admission

of evidence of jury deliberations and that no inquiries can be made after the verdict is

given. In the case of R-v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock 5, Lord Stynn said that

‘The prohibition of receipt of evidence takes effect from the moment the jury is

empanelled and covers not only what took place in the jury box or the jury room but

covers any statement as to what the jury believed the attitude of other jurors to be as

deduced from their behaviour in the box or as to what the juror thought the effect of

the verdict to be.’ This statement was previously reflected in cases such as R v

Qureshi 6 whereby the defendant had appealed against his convictions when a juror

voiced concern on jury’s conduct after the verdict was passed. Submissions were

made on whether to grant parties the right to investigate jury’s deliberation but it was

held following previous authorities and the Human Rights Act 1998 that the

common law rule was to be upheld. The common law rule thus creates a loophole for

a possibility of juror misconduct as the public cannot question what took place once

they retire. Another example is Attorney General v Scotcher 7 whereby Scotcher

wrote a letter regarding the jury’s misconduct after the verdict was given. It was

stated that most jurors had altered their vote as they wanted to go home. Hence, jury

secrecy may be abused by jurors and lead to impropriety through s 8 of the

Contempt of Court Act which highlights the confidentiality of jury deliberation. 8 The

case of R v Smith (Patrick)9 had provided that where jury misconduct is realised

5
[2004] UKHL 2
6
[2001] EWCA Crim 1807
7
[2005] 3 All ER 1
8
s 8 Contempt of Court Act 1981
9
[2005] UKHL 129

8
after deliberations begun, judges can only give further directions and stern warnings

to ensure impartiality but the common law rule must be upheld.

Besides that, another form of impartiality includes admission of extraneous

evidences during deliberation like additional information found on the internet outside

trial and misuse of social media during trial. In the case of R v Thakrar (Ketan)10, a

juror had discovered inaccurate information on the internet regarding the defendant

and was held that although the judge had given clear directions to the jury to ignore

the information found, there was a possibility that few jurors failed to follow it. The

fact that a juror had looked for other information showed failure to comply with the

judge’s direction and made the conviction unsafe. Cheryl Thomas’s report about

fairness of juries proved that all jurors in research had looked for information on the

internet. In high-profile cases, 12% of the jurors had looked on internet during trial

while only 3% had done so in standard cases. However, a much higher percentage

had admitted to seeing reports on the internet during trial. The reason why

extraneous evidence from the internet could cause jury impropriety was stated in R v

Karakaya11, that ‘the internet contained materials which could influence a juror’s

view’ and thus affect the verdict.

Biasness exists in forms like favour towards the opposite sex, prejudice

towards figure of authorities12 , to specific groups of people and racially. An issue is

where the racial composition of the jury is disproportionate, consisting mostly of

white people. The concern of misrepresentation of ethnic minority by juries to many

is implicitly assumed that the verdicts of juries are affected—proven when there were
10
[2008] EWCA Crim 2359
11
[2005] EWCA Crim 346
12
R v Abdroikov (Nurlon) [2007] UKHL 37- Jurors consisted of police officers and a CPS solicitor and it
was argued that biasness can be presumed as the defendant of the case and the police officer were
from the same local service background and that the solicitor was a paid employee of the prosecutor.
It was appealed by the 3 defendants on the basis of jury biasness as the jurors were members of
public authority. The appeals were dismissed on Lords Rodger and Carswell’s statement whereby
Parliament had supported the fact that universal eligibility of public service is appropriate.

9
complaints by BME groups that jurors were mostly summoned from white areas only.

Examples that show possible racial biasness include Gregory v United Kingdom 13

and Sander v United Kingdom14 whereby jurors showed racial prejudice during

trial. The defendants had appealed on grounds that they were wrongly convicted due

to biasness of jury that was not properly addressed by the judges as the judges had

redirected the jury. The former case appeal was dismissed on the basis that the

judge’s redirection was right and that enquiries could and should not be made.

However, this was later distinguished by the European Court of Human Rights in the

latter case which stated that the judge should have inquired into the remarks made

by jurors as a letter was written by a juror admitting his racial biasness and that the

second letter could not rebut the allegations made. Thus, where the allegations were

certain, redirection is insufficient in dealing with juror impartiality and better methods

should be adopted.

Jury nobbling or tampering occurs when there is an ‘actual or attempted

influence...of jury members through intimidation or inducement’. 15 This may comprise

of violent acts, bribes or threats to jury members that affects their independent

decisions. This intimidation can occur amongst the jury members themselves or the

jury16 whereby some jurors deliberately intimidates other jurors by refusing to

cooperate or mock opinions of jurors. Jury nobbling can also occur between the jury

and participants of the trial such as in R v Brown17 where inappropriate remarks

were made to the jurors by the defendant’s family. It could be done deliberately to

obtain a discharge due to friction between the jury and other parties, and also to

13
[1995] 19 E.H.R.R CD82
14
[2001] 31 E.H.R.R 44
15
Hodder Education Co UK, '' (Hoddereducationcouk, )
<https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Law Review/Law Rev Vol 10
No 3/LawReview10_3_Jury_knobbling.pdf?ext=.pdf> accessed 1 December 2015
16
See Juries in Criminal Trials, Part Two at n.9, p.47,ante
17
[2001] EWCA Crim 2828

10
influence the partiality of the jury. In some cases, individual jury contact with

members of the public18 can be considered as jury nobbling or tampering and may

lead to dismissal of the juror too.

Jurors are also likely to behave improperly in long and complex fraud cases.

Unlike a qualified judge, jurors are lay people with little or no knowledge on specialist

matters like fraud. They may find difficulty in understanding fraud trials as considered

by Roskill Committee19 thus defeating the purpose of a jury as a fair and democratic

method of deciding cases since they barely understand the case thus may not be

precise in delivering verdicts. Auld LJ argued that in fraud cases, the complexity and

volume of the case may cover up dishonesty due to too many complicated evidences

to keep up with. Fraud trials also take up a significant amount of time: R v Rayment

and others20 , regarding seven people whom were charged with fraud and

corruption related to the Jubilee Line Extension Project (JLEP). This trial was

extended for 2 years and in the last seven months of the case, was only heard by

jury for approximately 22.5 hours of evidence by the first defendant. This happened

due to jurors falling ill and unexpected and unavoidable duties of jurors. The trial

collapsed and was explained by Patrick Upward QC 21 that due to the extension of

the trial, further deliberations made will lead to unfairness which is against Article 8

of the ECHR. The possibility of more delay was also high. It is seen that jury trial in

complex fraud cases are lengthy and complexed, making it costly and reducing the

efficiency of courts as other trials would need to wait for their turn. Its complexity

makes jurors unrepresentative thus defeating the purpose of a jury. Hence, it is

18
R v Blackwell [1995] 2 Cr App R 625 In this case, although the juror was talking to her fiancé in the
absence of the jury, she was discharged as they had discussed about the case at hand
19
Roskill Committee on Fraud Trials 1983 para 8.27 – “The…sophisticated world of finance and
international trading…is probably a mystery to most or all of the jurors…A knowledge of accountancy
or bookkeeping may be essential to an understanding of the case.”
20
Cpsgovuk, '' (Cpsgovuk, ) <http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/119_05/> accessed 1
December 2015
21
Counsel for the Crown in the case of R v Rayment and Others [2005]

11
assumed that complex fraud trials lead to jury impropriety because a juror’s

unrepresentativeness would likely lead to an impartial verdict.

THE LAMP: REIGNITED?

Nevertheless, there are three exceptions to the general rule 22 whereby

inquiries can be made as held by Lord Carswell: R v Smith (Patrick)23 if the whole

22
s 8 of the Contempt of Court Act
23
[2005] UKHL 129

12
jury had shown misconduct. In R v Young (Stephen)24 , the jurors used an Ouija

board as the basis of their decision thus the court was permissioned to inquire into

their discussion in the hotel room because there was a possibility of serious

misconduct by the whole jury. Other exceptions where inquiries can be made include

the jury being affected by extraneous influences, like in R v Mirza which explains

that the common law rule protects only jury secrecy, not the admission of extraneous

evidence and thus makes inquires in line with Article 6. Besides that, complaints of

impropriety made during the trial course before a verdict also allows for inquiry.

Other than that, as Auld LJ suggested 25, reforms to allow inquiry into possible jury

misconduct is necessary in situations where there is a ‘real risk that the jury has not

tried the defendant according to the evidence’. 26 A test as such can help ensure that

jurors deliberate and decide based on evidence of the case. However, although

inquiring into discussions can keep jurors on their toes and ensure they act

accordingly, it may undermine the finality of verdicts and may invite harm to jurors.

This could worsen the problem of impropriety as jurors may feel pressured when

reaching the decision. Nevertheless, inquiries can be a useful safeguard if practiced

correctly without abuse.

Admission of extraneous evidence may not lead to impropriety as there have

been cases where the admissions of extraneous evidence have been allowed: R v

Hawkins (Leslie John).27 One of the jurors had visited the site of the arrest and

used the internet research on drug addiction and use. The application was refused

on the grounds that the convictions were safe as they did not take account ‘extra

24
[1995] 2 Cr. App. R 379
25
Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, Report October 2001, ch.5, para. 98,
available at www.criminal-courts-review.org.uk/, accessed 15 November 2015.
26
Laura McGowan , “Trial by Jury : Still a Lamp in the Dark?” (2005) JCL 69 (518)
27
[2005] EWCA Crim 2842

13
specialist knowledge’. Admission of extraneous evidence may not always lead to

misconduct as Lord Ken McDonald had raised an argument on how to protect juries

from materials on the internet. He mentioned that to police the internet was almost

impossible and that although juries are not allowed to conduct online research, it is

assumable that it will happen and that a trial should not be invalidated –but the

debate is still ongoing. It also depends on the nature of the information as it is

argued that jurors look for factual information online to better understand the case in

order to reach a fair verdict. Nevertheless, the judge still has to evaluate the

information brought in and decide if the extraneous information would lead to

prejudice. Clear directions to educate the jury and frequent warnings given can help

reduce the admission of extraneous evidence. Jurors should report any misconduct

to the judge in order to fully tackle this problem of impropriety but in reality, many of

them are reluctant to do so as they may want to maintain a good relationship with

peers. Alternative methods of reporting impropriety should be allowed to protect the

confidentiality of jurors such as through drop boxes and e-mails, although using e-

mails would contradict the previous argument of preventing the use of interne.

However, it is seen that the use of internet is almost inevitable today and it may not

always lead to impropriety, especially if it helps jury understand the case better.

The law of bias states that a judge has to determine if the bias was an actual

bias or a ‘real danger of bias affecting the mind of the relevant juror…’ when

biasness leads to jury impropriety. The ECHR’s decision that expects judges to

enquire into cases of prejudice is a possible way to remove the possible doubts of

impropriety as one can truly know what happens during deliberation but it is against

UK’s common law. Giving strict warnings and detailed redirections as another

approach by courts is commendable but may raise doubts on whether it actually

14
removes biasness of jurors as jurors may not always follow directions or even the

sworn oath. This situation is made worse when the common law rule is applied as

even if jurors do not follow directions, it would be difficult for judges to discover as

jury secrecy stands. However, there are exceptions to this rule as in R v Mirza

where courts held that the rule protected the secrecy of deliberations, while evidence

of jury bias was considered as ‘extraneous evidence’ and thus enquiry of it was not

against the common law rule. In some cases, directions and warnings could be

unclear thus fails to remove or repress prejudice. However, judges can opt to

discharge up to 3 jurors or order a retrial with a new jury but this approach is rarely

taken as concrete evidence of biasness, which is hard to obtain due to jury secrecy,

is needed. Ordering a retrial is also time consuming and costly and thus is an

approach scarcely used.

There have been many suggestions to overcome the problem of jury nobbling

like legislative amendments, questioning the jury, protection of the jury, discharging a

juror or the whole jury and trial without jury. The Criminal Justice Act28 shows

when courts can consider a trial without jury and the discharge of jurors when jury

tampering occurs. According to s44, there needs to be a ‘real and present danger’ 29

that jury tampering would occur and the danger of it occurring is significant until the

extent where any actions taken to prevent it would fail to call for a trial without jury.

Jury nobbling has also been made an offence 30 and in cases where it is only

28
The Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 44 and 46
29
Section 44(6) of the CJA 2003 shows examples on what amounts to a “real and present danger”
and this would include-
i) cases where the trial is a retrial and was previously discharged because of jury tampering
ii)cases where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings which involved the
defendant or any other defendants of the case
iii) cases where there was intimidation or attempted intimidation of any person that is likely a witness
of the trial
30
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

15
discovered after an acquittal is granted, a retrial can be ordered. 31 When questioning

the jury on whether they can continue discussing partially without influence, it should

be done openly and should satisfy both the objective and subjective test 32, whereby

the judge has to consider other views of the facts besides his own. However, this has

been argued to be insufficient and with the support of The Crown Court Protocol on

Jury Irregularities, judges should consult advocates and jury as a whole to determine

the severity of the issue. Jury protection is a form of prevention and is used for in

about 10-15 cases annually. However, the cost of this method is high 33, thus making

it less favourable. Majority verdicts 34 are also a safeguard to prevent jury nobbling as

it prevents jurors to pressurise others with their view where a unanimous verdict

cannot be reached. The ratio of verdict has to be made public and thus reduces the

possibility of hung verdicts as shown. 35 Yet there has been debate that this approach

diluted the concept of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and further undermined

public confidence. As seen, various safeguards have been introduced to prevent jury

tampering but since it is already an offense and the common law rule protects jury

deliberation, jury tampering is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, other methods could be

costly and time consuming in which are not feasible to be used.

In complex fraud cases, judges can opt to dismiss the entire jury or for the trial

to be terminated: S 46(4).36 Other approaches include electing special juries

consisting of qualified people drawn from a specific pool of prospective jurors. This is

contradictory to the randomness of juror selection where Lord Denning made an

31
Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996
32
Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No. 2) [2001] CA : In this case the judge had to
consider whether a fair-minded, independent and informed observer would be satisfied that the jury
could carry out their task without taking into account the extraneous material
33
Bbccom, '' (BBC News, ) <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13797562> accessed 1 December 2015
34
Juries Act 1974
35
Professor Cheryl Thomas research (2010) found that only 0.6% of jury cases resulted in a hung jury
36
Criminal Justice Act 2003

16
obiter statement37 that the random selection of jury would represent the opinions of

society and courts should ‘[take parties as they come]’. However, in complex fraud

cases, the random selection would not equate to a representative one as firstly,

jurors need to possess basic knowledge regarding fraud to fully understand the

evidence and deliver a fair verdict. Secondly, fraud tribunals 38 could be used instead.

However this was rejected by the Government on the reason that it was hard to find

eligible people and instead introduced ‘trial by judge alone’ 39 which is beneficial as it

reduces trial length as judges with ample specific knowledge regarding fraud would

be able to deliver his verdict without extraneous influence and prejudice.

Appointment of a special juror is similar to the normal jury but is distinguished by the

12th juror which is one with specialist knowledge on specific areas. This appears to

be a balanced approach in handling complex fraud trials it retains the randomness of

the jury while allowing a restricted exception by allowing a specially qualified juror to

guide the jury. However, this does not mean that fraud trials would not be long and

complexed and thus may still cause impropriety. Considering all the possible

methods, defendants should be allowed to choose the approach that want in trials

whenever permissible as different cases would differ respectively. Juries should

remain in most trials when necessary40, coupled with people with specialist

knowledge as to assist the jury in matters regarding understanding of evidence and

not deliberations in order to help judges reach a fair verdict at trial.

37
R v Brownlow [1980] Q.B. 530 Lord Denning said that “…the jury should be selected at random
from a panel of persons who are nominated at random. We believe that twelve persons selected at
random are likely to be a cross-section of the people and thus represents the views of the common
man.”
38
Roskill Committee explains fraud trials to be a judge sitting with qualified lay members with the
power to question witness. This was also recommended by Sir Robin Auld LJ in the Review of
Criminal Courts(2001)
39
White Paper after CJA 2003 claimed that trial by single judge emerged to be better dealt with.
However, this was repealed in 2012.
40
Such as in cases where defendant faces serious loss of liberty or reputation whereby the Bar
Council states that juries should be retained in such cases

17
CONCLUSION

It is evident that there are many incidences of jury impropriety, coupled with

necessary approaches needed to overcome this problem. A balance is needed

between the common law rule and inquiry into jury discussions in order to tackle the

issue of jury impropriety as without inquiry, the root of the problem cannot be soiled

out and likewise, if the common law rule is abolished, frank discussions cannot occur

and thus may undermine public confidence. In extreme cases, jurors or the whole

jury should be discharged and a retrial should be allowed. Most importantly, judges

18
play a role to give clear and precise directions to the jury as they are after all, lay

people with no prior legal knowledge. Guidelines should be given to judges to ensure

that they direct the jury accordingly. Jurors themselves also play a proactive role in

this as they should feel responsible in delivering a fair verdict and uphold their civil

responsibility accordingly. If all these respective roles are played, the problem of jury

impropriety can be tackled and thus restore the purpose of trial by jury.

Bibliography
Legislation and Statutes
1. European Convention of Human Rights
2. Human Rights Act 1998
3. Contempt of Court Act 1981
4. Criminal Justice Act 2003
5. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
6. Juries Act 1974

Cases

19
1. R v Khan (Bakish Alla) [2008] EWCA Crim 531

2. R v Heward [2012] EWCA Crim 890

3. R v Connors [2013] EWCA Crim 368

4. R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37

5. R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] AC 1118

6. R v Qureshi [2001] EWCA Crim 1807

7. Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] 3 All ER 1

8. R v Smith (Patrick) [2005] UKHL 129

9. R v Thakrar (Ketan) [2008] EWCA Crim 2359

10. R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346

11. R v Abdroikov (Nurlon) [2007] UKHL 37

12. Gregory v United Kingdom [1995] 19 E.H.R.R. CD82

13. Sander v United Kindgom [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 44

14. R v Brown [2001] EWCA Crim 2828

15. R v Blackwell [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 625

16. R v Rayment and Others [2005]

17. R v Young (Stephen) [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 379

18. R v Hawkins (Leslie John) [2005] EWCA Crim 2842

19. Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2) [2001] CA

20. R v Brownlow [1980] Q.B. 530

Textbooks

1. Darbyshire P, Darbyshire on the English Legal System (7th edn, Sweet &

Maxwell 2014)

20
2. Kelly D and Slapper G, The English Legal System: 2011-2012 (14th edn,

Routledge 2011)

Online Journals and Articles

1. Bayliss G, ‘Extension Jury Nobbling’ (2015) 10

<https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazineextras/Law

%20Review/Law%20Rev%20Vol%2010%20No

%203/LawReview10_3_Jury_knobbling.pdf?ext=.pdf> accessed 1 December

2015

2. ‘CPS Statement – R v Rayment and Others: Press Release: Crown Prosecution

Service’ (The Crown Prosecution Service, 17 March 2009)

<http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/119_05/> accessed 30 December

2015

3. Casciani D, ‘Jury “Tampering Trial” Challenged’ BBC UK (16 June 2011)

<http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13797562> accessed 1 December 2015

4. Chancellor’s, Lord, ‘Criminal Courts Review’ (7 June 2009)

<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.criminal-courts-

review.org.uk/> accessed 1 December 2015

5. Commission L, Matua TA and Ture, Juries in Criminal Trials. Part Two: A

Discussion Paper (preliminary Paper) (Law Commission 1999)

6. Ferguson P, ‘Jury Research and Impropriety’ (2005) 155 NLJ 1840

7. Haralambous N, ‘Investigating Impropriety in Jury Deliberations: A Recipe for

Disaster?’ (2004) 68 The Journal of Criminal Law 411

21
8. Lowe P, ‘CHALLENGES FOR THE JURY SYSTEM AND A FAIR TRIAL IN THE

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY’ <http://aija.org.au/Criminal%20Justice

%202011/Papers/Lowe.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

9. McGowan L, ‘Trial by Jury: Still a Lamp in the Dark?’ (2005) 69 The Journal of

Criminal Law 518

10. ‘Rules and Practice Directions’ (Ministry of Justice, 21 September 2015)

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/rulesmenu-

2015#Anchor12> accessed 15 November 2015

11. Taylor N and Denyer JR, ‘Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety’ (2014) 78

The Journal of Criminal Law 43

12. Timmis C, ‘Trial by Error?’ (The Law Society Gazette, 29 September 2006)
<http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/trial-by-error/2032.fullarticle> accessed 15
November 2015

13. Zander M, ‘JURY RESEARCH AND IMPROPRIETY A RESPONSE TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS’’ (2005)

<https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/staff%20publications%20full

%20text/zander/Jury%20Research%20and%20Impropriety.pdf> accessed 15

November 2015

Reports

1. Thomas C, ‘Are Juries Fair?’ (2010)

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-

research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

22
 2. Thomas C and Balmer N, ‘Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System’ (2007)

<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/judicial-institute/files/Diversity-Fairness-in-the-Jury-

System.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

List of References
Legislation and Statutes
1. European Convention of Human Rights

2. Human Rights Act 1998

23
3. Contempt of Court Act 1981

4. Criminal Justice Act 2003

5. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

6. Juries Act 1974

Cases
1. R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37

2. R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] AC 1118

3. R v Qureshi [2001] EWCA Crim 1807

4. Attorney General v Scotcher [2005] 3 All ER 1

5. R v Smith (Patrick) [2005] UKHL 129

6. R v Thakrar (Ketan) [2008] EWCA Crim 2359

7. R v Karakaya [2005] EWCA Crim 346

8. R v Abdroikov (Nurlon) [2007] UKHL 37

9. Gregory v United Kingdom [1995] 19 E.H.R.R. CD82

10. Sander v United Kindgom [2001] 31 E.H.R.R. 44

11. R v Brown [2001] EWCA Crim 2828

12. R v Blackwell [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 625

13. R v Rayment and Others [2005]

14. R v Young (Stephen) [1995] 2 Cr. App. R 379

15. R v Hawkins (Leslie John) [2005] EWCA Crim 2842

16. Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2) [2001] CA

17. R v Brownlow [1980] Q.B. 530

Textbooks

24
1. Darbyshire P, Darbyshire on the English Legal System (7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell

2014)

2. Kelly D and Slapper G, The English Legal System: 2011-2012 (14th edn,

Routledge 2011)

Online Journals and Articles

1. Bayliss G, ‘Extension Jury Nobbling’ (2015) 10

<https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazineextras/Law

%20Review/Law%20Rev%20Vol%2010%20No

%203/LawReview10_3_Jury_knobbling.pdf?ext=.pdf> accessed 1 December 2015

2. ‘CPS Statement – R v Rayment and Others: Press Release: Crown Prosecution

Service’ (The Crown Prosecution Service, 17 March 2009)

<http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/119_05/> accessed 30 December 2015

3. Casciani D, ‘Jury “Tampering Trial” Challenged’ BBC UK (16 June 2011)

<http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-13797562> accessed 1 December 2015

4. Chancellor’s, Lord, ‘Criminal Courts Review’ (7 June 2009)

<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.criminal-courts-

review.org.uk/> accessed 1 December 2015

5. Commission L, Matua TA and Ture, Juries in Criminal Trials. Part Two: A

Discussion Paper (preliminary Paper) (Law Commission 1999)

6. Ferguson P, ‘Jury Research and Impropriety’ (2005) 155 NLJ 1840

8. Lowe P, ‘CHALLENGES FOR THE JURY SYSTEM AND A FAIR TRIAL IN THE

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY’ <http://aija.org.au/Criminal%20Justice

%202011/Papers/Lowe.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

25
9. McGowan L, ‘Trial by Jury: Still a Lamp in the Dark?’ (2005) 69 The Journal of

Criminal Law 518

11. Taylor N and Denyer JR, ‘Judicial Management of Juror Impropriety’ (2014) 78

The Journal of Criminal Law 43

12. Timmis C, ‘Trial by Error?’ (The Law Society Gazette, 29 September 2006)

<http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/analysis/trial-by-error/2032.fullarticle> accessed 15

November 2015

13. Zander M, ‘JURY RESEARCH AND IMPROPRIETY A RESPONSE TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS’’ (2005)

<https://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/staff%20publications%20full

%20text/zander/Jury%20Research%20and%20Impropriety.pdf> accessed 15

November 2015

Reports

1. Thomas C, ‘Are Juries Fair?’ (2010)

<http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-

research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

2. Thomas C and Balmer N, ‘Diversity and Fairness in the Jury System’ (2007)

<http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/judicial-institute/files/Diversity-Fairness-in-the-Jury-

System.pdf> accessed 15 November 2015

26