| CRIME — Jury — Panel — Whether presence on jury of serving police officer or solicitor employed by prosecuting body breaching defendant’s right to fair trial — Human Rights Act 1998, Sch 1, Pt I, art 6
R v Abdroikov; R v Green; R v Williamson [2007] UKHL 37
HL(E): Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Mance: 17 October 2007
The principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done and that a defendant had a right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal might in certain circumstances be violated when a serving police officer or a lawyer employed by a prosecuting authority was a member of a jury.
The House of Lords so held, on appeals by the defendants, Nurlon Abdroikov, Richard John Green and Kenneth Joseph Williamson, from a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (Lord Woolf, CJ, Richards and Henriques JJ ) [2005] 1 WLR 3538 on 28 July 2005, dismissing the defendants’ appeals against conviction. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal of the defendant Abdroikov who had been convicted on 31 August 2004 of the offence of attempted murder after a trial at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Beaumont QC and a jury. By a majority (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and Lord Carswell dissenting) the House of Lords allowed the appeals of the defendant, Green, who had been convicted on 5 October 2004 for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and having a bladed or pointed article, after a trial at the Crown Court at Woolwich before Judge Statman and a jury, and of the defendant Williamson who had been convicted on 3 February 2005 of two counts of rape after a trial at the Crown Court at Warrington before Judge Hale and a jury.
LORD BINGHAM said that in Abdroikov’s case, when the jury were in retirement considering their verdicts, the foreman of the jury sent a note to the judge revealing that he was a serving police officer. He was concerned that if required to report for duty at the Notting Hill Carnival on the following Bank Holiday Monday, when the court was not sitting, he might meet police officers who had been called to give evidence at the trial. With the acquiescence of defending counsel, who had not previously known of the foreman’s occupation, the juror was directed not to report for duty on Monday. The defendant Green was stopped by police officers and was searched by a police sergeant. There was a dispute on the evidence between the defendant and the sergeant as to the manner of the search and what was said. Sometime after the defendant was convicted and sentenced, his solicitor discovered that a police officer had been a member of the trial jury, a fact not known to the defendant at the time of the trial. The juror and the sergeant were both serving in the same borough at the time of the incident and had once served in the same police station, but they did not know each other. In Williamson’s case, one of the jurors wrote to the court before the trial began to say that he worked for the Crown Prosecution Service and had done so since its inception in 1986. His letter was passed to defending counsel who sought to challenge the juror on the ground of potential bias and the defendant’s right to a fair trial under art 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The judge ruled that he could see no objection to the juror sitting in the light of the current legislation. Lord Bingham said that it was one of the best known principles of English law that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. There was now no difference between the common law test of bias and the requirement under art 6 of the Human Rights Convention. Abdroikov’s case did not turn on a contest between the evidence of the police and that of the defendant, and it would have been hard to suggest that the case was one in which unconscious prejudice, even if present, would have been likely to operate to the disadvantage of the defendant. In Green’s case there was a crucial dispute between the defendant and the police sergeant, and the sergeant and the juror, although not personally known to each other, shared the same local service background. In that context, the fair minded and informed observer would think there was a real and possible source of unfairness beyond the reach of standard judicial warnings and directions. In Williamson’s case, it was clear that justice was not seen to be done if one person discharging the very important neutral role of juror was a full-time, salaried, long-serving employee of the prosecutor. Williamson was entitled to be tried by a tribunal that was and appeared to be impartial, and he was not.
LORD RODGER and LORD CARSWELL delivered speeches dismissing all three appeals.
BARONESS HALE and LORD MANCE delivered speeches agreeing with Lord Bingham.
|
