|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Burcombe v R.  EWCA Crim 2818 (29 November 2010)
Cite as:  EWCA Crim 2818
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
HHJ Michael Brooke
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE HON. MR JUSTICE KING
THE HON. MR JUSTICE NICOL
| Christopher John Burcombe
|- and -
Mr. M. J. D. Warren (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 5th November 2010
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Nicol:
i) Some time into the trial, the jury arranged to have a lunch together which was to be cooked by one of their members who was a chef. He mentioned to Ms Jiggens that Ms Hemblade was going to join them for this lunch. This appears to have been some time before the end of the trial.
ii) After the jury had retired and begun their deliberations and Ms Jiggens had been sworn as the Jury Bailiff, Ms Hemblade came to see her, Ms Hemblade asked if she would go into the jury room and 'tell Sue I'll be outside waiting for my lift'. Ms Jiggens objected that this would be improper to which Ms Hemblade responded, that she would wait outside anyway.
iii) On the Monday after that weekend (and so, we infer, Monday 20th August 2007), Ms. Jiggens took the jurors outside at one point for a cigarette break. She overheard 'Sue' talking about her weekend. Sue said that she'd been out with Elaine and they had had a brilliant time, boogying all night.
"(1) No judgment after verdict in any trial by jury in any court shall be stayed or reversed by reason -
(a) that the provisions of this Act about the summoning or impanelling of jurors, or the selection of jurors by ballot, have not been complied with. "
Accordingly, Mr Banks on behalf of the Appellant, accepts that he cannot challenge the conviction because two of the jurors had not been properly summoned to court in the proper manner,
"In some cases the very nature of the enquiries might give cause to think that in the course of them one or more members of the jury may have been given access to material which is prejudicial to the defendant. However, we think that the court ought to have some firm basis for reaching that conclusion and should not act on the basis of speculation."