Most of the things i write about on this blog (although it has been a while) are based on a tv show or a film and i look at the storyline and the law quite closely. This time im going to use the general idea of court room dramas and look into an aspect of those kind of shows and explore it further.
This time i am going to explore UK case law to discover and write about the interesting and unusual things juries have done both inside and outside of the jury room and although i have called this article "Rogue Jurors" not all of the cases i will reffer to will involve somebody going rogue, i just thought it made for a fun title and some jurors do go rogue.
In the case of Attorney General v Fraill [2011] EWHC 1629 the juror acted inappropriately by contacting the defendant by Facebook and discussed what was happening in the jury room as a result ended up with an 8 month jail sentence.
Unsuprisingly there has been a case in which a jury member has fallen asleep during the trial. This happened R v Hodge [2003] EWCA Crim 290 and had to be dismissed from being a member of the jury.
Another event that is not suprising but is still an unusual occurence is bullying in the jury room which happened in the case of R v Smith (2004) UKHL 12.
.
There have been a number of cases in which the jury have expreimented in someway in the jury room and becoming mini investigators at the same as trying to decide the verdict of the case.
In the case of Blake a juror went home and experimented with knives which was an important aspect of the case. They then told the rest of jury there results of his home expreiment. In the cases of R v Crees [1996] Crim LR 830 and R v Stewart and Sappleton (1989) 89 Cr App R 273 the jury were given items that they should not of been given so as to complete there experiments.
In R v Crees the jury were given a ruler so as to pertend that an individual was holding a knife to renact the crime and in the case of R v Stewart and Sappleton the jury were given measuring scales presumably to figure out how an individual could be carrying drugs in there bags and not realise. In the case of R v Maggs (1990) RTR 129 the jury was however not acting inappropriately by asking for and using a tape measure and a maginfiying glass because these were considered to be stuff that people may ordinarily have with them. I personally have to argue this as being unusual as who other than an old classical Sherlock Homles carries a magnifying glass with them?
Now we get on to what is in my opinion is the most unusual of cases and in no particular order as i cannot pick.
There are three cases that the jury have acted quite similarly but would certainly be regarded as unusual. In the cases of Cornish v. Daykins (1845) 5 l.t. o.s. 130, Vaise v Delaval (1785) and Harvey v Hewitt (1840) the jury decided the verdict based on random luck instead of coming to a decsion between themselves. In the cases of Vaise v Delaval (1785) and Harvey v Hewitt (1840) the decision was made by drawing lots and in Cornish v Daykin it was decided by the flip of a coin. In all three of these cases the way the jury acted were determined as being unfair.
In the case of R v Young [1995] 2 Cr App R 379 some of the members the jury outside of the jury room determined that the defendant was guilty but they did this by trying to contact the dead victim with an Ouiji Board which told them that the defendant was guilty. The case was declared a mistrial and a retrial occured with the defendant being found guilty but this time in the proper manner.
This Article is for Entertainment Purposes Only.
The Article is not intended to create any offence. Most Info was obtained from the BBC.
If this article is not accurate then comment, I will update where appropriate.