Stringfellow, R v

A verdict remains lawful where the whole exchange in open court establishes that all jurors agreed, even if the foreman initially described it as a majority verdict. A court must not speculate about the jury’s meaning where the recorded answer is genuinely ambiguous. However, an express correction by the foreman, followed by confirmation that all 12 jurors agreed, removes that ambiguity.

Where the verdict is in fact by a majority, Juries Act 1974, section 17(3), requires the foreman to state the numbers agreeing and dissenting. A majority verdict without that statement is unacceptable.

The appellant was tried at Snaresbrook Crown Court for conspiracy to supply a controlled Class A drug. On 13 July 2006 the jury returned a guilty verdict and he was sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.

After a majority-verdict direction, the court clerk asked the foreman whether at least ten jurors had agreed. The foreman initially referred to a majority verdict, but then apologised, stated that all had agreed, and confirmed that all 12 jurors agreed. The appeal challenged the validity of the verdict on the basis that it could not safely be treated as unanimous and that an unrecorded majority verdict would be unlawful.

Disposition

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It was sure that the verdict was unanimous and therefore lawful.

1. Under section 17(3) of the Juries Act 1974, a majority verdict is acceptable only if the foreman states in open court how many jurors agreed and how many dissented. The court treated that as a requirement of a lawful majority verdict, consistent with R v Pigg (1983) 76 Cr.App.R 79.

2. The initial question from the clerk did not follow the prescribed procedure. It invited an answer as to whether at least ten jurors had agreed, rather than first requiring a simple yes-or-no answer. That error explained how the foreman initially answered that a majority had agreed.

3. The court assessed the entire exchange in its context. The jury had shortly before delivered unanimous verdicts concerning two co-defendants. When asked how many had agreed in the appellant’s case, the foreman immediately apologised and said that all had agreed. The clerk then asked whether the verdict was unanimous and whether all 12 had agreed; the foreman answered yes.

4. Millward [1999] 1 Cr.App.R 61 establishes that an appellate court must not attempt to discover what a jury meant where the answer is ambiguous. That principle did not assist the appellant. The foreman’s apology and subsequent confirmation were a correction of the earlier reference to a majority, not an unresolved ambiguity. By the end of the exchange, all 12 jurors had agreed on guilt.

5. The court added practical guidance. Clerks should follow the prescribed verdict-taking procedure, and counsel or the judge should promptly require the process to be restarted if an error occurs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2008] EWCA Crim 2825.
• Crown Court: At Snaresbrook Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of conspiracy to supply a controlled Class A drug and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment.