R v Smith (Patrick)

The House held that a trial judge is not invariably obliged to question jurors individually or collectively on receipt of a juror's complaint about other jurors' conduct, but where the judge elects to give further directions rather than discharge the jury those directions must be sufficiently clear, detailed and emphatic to meet the particular problem identified. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.8(1) does not prevent a judge from conducting necessary investigations of alleged jury bias or irregularity, but the common law prohibition on inquiry into matters intrinsic to jury deliberations remains. Counsel's expressed agreement to the judge's chosen course is a relevant factor in assessing the judge's decision but does not of itself preclude later challenge. Because the directions given in this case were insufficiently emphatic to meet the allegations in the juror's letter, the convictions were unsafe and were quashed.

This appeal concerned whether a trial judge, on receipt of a signed letter from a juror alleging that some jurors were pressuring others, was obliged to question jurors or whether he could properly give further directions and proceed. The appellants had been convicted after a retrial at the Central Criminal Court on counts including conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm, false imprisonment, kidnapping and murder. During extended jury deliberations a juror handed the judge a letter naming herself and complaining that certain jurors were badgering, coercing and trading verdicts across counts. The judge consulted counsel; defence counsel, for tactical reasons, agreed with the judge's proposal to give further directions rather than discharge the jury.

The Court certified two questions about the judge's obligations in light of R v Mirza [2004] and whether the position differed if defence counsel agreed with the judge. The House reviewed the common law rules: (i) the general prohibition on inquiry into jury deliberations; (ii) exceptions for verdicts determined other than by deliberation or where extraneous influences are alleged; and (iii) the effect of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 s.8(1). The Law Lords held that Mirza permitted the judge to investigate where credible evidence of bias or irregularity was raised, but that any inquiry must avoid probing matters intrinsic to the jury's deliberations.

The House concluded that the judge was not obliged as a matter of law to question jurors in this case and that questioning risked identifying the complainant and provoking recriminations. However, having chosen to give further directions he was required to ensure that the directions were sufficiently specific and forceful to meet the allegations (including emphasising that jurors must follow the judge's directions on the law and must not bargain over verdicts). The directions given lacked the particularity and emphasis required, so the verdicts were unsafe. The House allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal to decide whether to order a new trial.

Appeal allowed. The House held that while a trial judge may investigate credible allegations of jury irregularity and is not barred by section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 from doing so, he is not invariably required to question jurors about matters intrinsic to their deliberations. The judge may instead give further directions or discharge the jury; if he gives directions they must be sufficiently clear and emphatic to meet the problem. Here the directions were insufficient to meet the juror's allegations and the convictions were therefore unsafe; the convictions were quashed and the case remitted to the Court of Appeal to consider a new trial.

Convictions after retrial at the Central Criminal Court (convictions recorded 30 May 2002). Appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) [2004] EWCA Crim 1474 (appeal dismissed). Two certified questions were granted for appeal to the House of Lords; leave to appeal to the House was given by the Appeal Committee on 11 October 2004. Appeal heard and allowed by the House of Lords [2005] UKHL 12.