R v Wayne Clements

A jury verdict is not validated merely because a majority direction was given. Under section 17(1) of the Juries Act 1974, at least 10 of 11 jurors must agree. A verdict expressed as 9:2 is insufficient and invalid. The Court of Appeal may annul the resulting conviction by writ of venire de novo and may permit a retrial where the circumstances justify it and no prejudice is identified. Parties must give close attention to majority directions and the taking of verdicts.

The appellant was convicted by an 11-member jury. Following a direction that a verdict could be accepted by a majority of 9:2, the jury returned a 9:2 guilty verdict on one count. The Crown Court judge ruled that verdict invalid and addressed retrial arrangements. The appeal concerned whether the verdict complied with section 17(1) of the Juries Act 1974, the proper remedy for the recorded conviction, and whether a retrial should be permitted.

Disposition. The court gave leave to appeal, issued a writ of venire de novo annulling the conviction on count 1, preserved the acquittal concerning the other complainant, and granted permission for a retrial on count 1.

1. Majority verdict. Subject to subsections (3) and (4), section 17(1) of the Juries Act 1974 permits a non-unanimous verdict where there are 11 jurors only if 10 agree. A majority direction which is inconsistent with that statutory requirement does not automatically invalidate every verdict. However, a verdict expressed as being supported by an insufficient majority is invalid. The 9:2 verdict therefore failed to comply with the statute.
2. Remedy. The Registrar had correctly identified that, once a conviction was recorded, the appeal was before the Court of Appeal under section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and that the court could set aside the conviction, relying on O’Donnell (Paul Anthony) [1996] 1 Cr App R 286. The proper course was a writ of venire de novo annulling the invalid conviction.
3. Retrial. The allegations were serious, concerned a young and vulnerable complainant, and the complainant remained engaged with the process. The court saw no prejudice to the appellant and granted permission for a retrial on count 1. Issues concerning joinder and admissibility were left to the trial judge.
4. Practice. The court endorsed the per curiam comments in R v Patten [2019] 1 WLR 5265 that majority directions and the taking of verdicts must not be treated as formulaic exercises.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 849, leave to appeal was granted, the conviction on count 1 was annulled by writ of venire de novo, and permission for a retrial on count 1 was granted.
• Crown Court: An 11-member jury returned a 9:2 guilty verdict. The trial judge ruled the verdict invalid and addressed retrial arrangements. No citation for the Crown Court ruling was stated in the judgment.