Carter, R. v

Where a juror is discharged for a proper reason during deliberations, the judge need not direct the remaining jurors to disregard that juror’s earlier views. Jury deliberation is a continuing process in which properly expressed views may be examined, accepted, rejected or treated as irrelevant. Those views cannot realistically be isolated once expressed.

The verdict remains that of the jurors who return it. A direction to ignore the departed juror’s contributions would be unrealistic and may cause confusion, provided there is no issue of juror misconduct, impropriety or irregularity.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of six counts of conspiracy to defraud arising from dishonest mortgage applications, and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment concurrently.

During the jury’s retirement, two jurors were discharged for personal reasons. The remaining ten jurors continued deliberations without a direction about the views previously expressed by the discharged jurors. They returned verdicts, including majority verdicts against the applicant on the remaining counts.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction, contending that the judge should have directed the remaining jurors not to be influenced by the discharged jurors’ views.

1. Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal was granted, but the convictions were safe.

2. Where a juror is discharged during retirement for a proper reason, as distinct from misconduct, impropriety or irregularity, the question whether to direct the remaining jury to ignore that juror’s views is the same whether one or more jurors are discharged and whenever the discharge occurs.

3. Deliberation is a dynamic and continuing process. While properly empanelled, every juror is entitled to express conscientiously held views about the evidence and the parties’ cases. Those views become part of the body of discussion in the jury room. They cannot realistically be separated from the remaining jurors’ subsequent reasoning.

4. A discharged juror has no responsibility for the eventual verdict. Nevertheless, the remaining jurors may have considered, accepted, rejected or treated that juror’s earlier views as irrelevant. The eventual verdict is their own because it is returned only by the jurors who remain and conscientiously reach it.

5. The court approved the concern expressed in R v LS [2009] EWCA Crim 1041 that a direction requiring jurors to put aside all contributions from a discharged juror may be impossible, or wrong, to obey. No direction was needed here; one would have caused confusion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against conviction was granted and the appeal was dismissed: [2010] EWCA Crim 201.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: The applicant was convicted of six counts of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment. No citation was stated.