Shawn Campbell, Adidja Palmer, Kahira Jones and Andre St John v The King No 2 (Jamaica)

In a jury trial affected by alleged bribery or other misconduct, the judge must investigate the facts and the spread of any contamination before deciding what remedial action is possible. A tailored direction or removal of an offending juror may be sufficient only where the remaining jurors can still act impartially. A general reminder of the jury oath cannot cure serious contamination, particularly where the alleged source remains on the jury. The court must assess the real risk of conscious or unconscious prejudice, including overcompensation against defendants. The prosecution cannot waive the court’s duty to secure a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. Where the verdict is returned by a jury that is not such a tribunal, the miscarriage-of-justice proviso cannot save the convictions.

Following a 64-day murder trial in Jamaica, the four appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Court of Appeal of Jamaica dismissed their appeals against conviction and reduced their minimum parole terms to reflect time spent in custody.

On further appeal, the issues included the admission of telecommunications evidence allegedly obtained contrary to the Interception of Communications Act and the constitutional protection of privacy, the handling of allegations of juror misconduct, and the timing of the jury’s retirement. The central issue was whether the alleged jury bribery and resulting contamination meant that a fair trial remained achievable.

The appeals were allowed. The Board advised that the appellants’ convictions be quashed and that the question whether there should be a retrial be remitted to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica.

1. Investigation of misconduct. Once alleged juror misconduct is brought to the judge’s attention, the judge must investigate what occurred and establish, so far as possible, the extent and duration of any contamination. The judge must then decide what remedial action is required to secure a fair trial.
2. The judge acted properly in dealing with the second jury incident in chambers and in discharging Juror 11. Further questioning might have been desirable, but the failure to make it did not cause a miscarriage of justice. Delegating reassurance of the jury to the forewoman was inappropriate, although it caused no prejudice in the circumstances.
3. In relation to the third incident, the judge should have questioned the other jurors individually, excluding the allegedly offending juror, rather than relying solely on the forewoman’s account. The possibility that further questioning might require discharge of the jury was not a reason to avoid the necessary inquiry.
4. Judges have a wide discretion in responding to jury misconduct. A direction must be clear, apposite, emphatic and sufficient to neutralise any prejudice. The direction given here merely repeated the jury’s general obligation to decide the case on the evidence and did not address the alleged bribery. It could not repair the damage to the integrity of the trial.
5. The allegedly corrupt juror should not have remained on the jury. The Board applied the guidance in Taylor (Bonnett) v The Queen [2013] 1 WLR 1144 and R v Putnam (1991) 93 Cr App R 281. There was a real danger that the other jurors had been influenced, consciously or unconsciously, including by overcompensating against the appellants. The convictions were therefore returned by a tribunal that was not fair and impartial, contrary to section 16 of Chapter III of the Jamaican Constitution. The prosecution could not waive that irregularity, and the proviso in section 14(1) of the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act had no application.

Other issues

The Board emphasised that juries must deliberate free from pressure, but expressed no concluded view on the late retirement ground. It deferred the constitutional questions concerning the admissibility of the telecommunications evidence. Under section 14(2) of the Judicature (Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, the question of a retrial was remitted to the local court.

• Privy Council: In [2024] UKPC 6, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were quashed, and the retrial question was remitted to the Court of Appeal of Jamaica.
• Court of Appeal of Jamaica: The appeals against conviction were dismissed on 3 April 2020. The appeals against sentence were allowed on 17 April 2020 to account for time spent in custody, reducing each minimum parole term by two years and six months.
• Home Circuit Court: After trial before Campbell J and a jury, the appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with specified minimum terms before parole eligibility.