About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

43 J. Crim. L. 163 (1979)
Committal Proceedings Misconception

handle is hein.journals/jcriml43 and id is 177 raw text is: Article COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS MISCONCEPTION Because of a dramatic revelation which a British juror has recently made to the present writer, this article purports to highlight an alarm- ing misconception entertained by some jurors as respects the true effect of committal proceedings in England and Wales.' Before drawing attention to the precise nature of the said miscon- ception, it would probably be useful to reproduce the notice displayed in jury rooms (as pointed out to us in Barrister's diary2) which reads: 'Her Majesty's Judges remind you of the solemn obligation upon you not to reveal, in any circumstances, to any person either during the trial or after it is over, anything relating to it which has occurred in this room while you have been considering your verdict.'3 Despite the strictures of that notice, it is contended that no risk of contempt of court4 is incurred either by the juror in question (who for obvious reasons must remain anonymous) or by the present writer in revealing the curious means by which the jury arrived at their unaniimous verdict, provided that the particular case is not identified by name or through other details and the venue of the court is not divulged. The juror volunteered the information that when the jury retired to the jury room to embark upon- their deliberations, they ignored the evidence completely. Instead, they attached considerable significance to the fact that the defendant was committed for trial. They therefore felt that the examining justices 'must have been satisfied of the defend- ant's guilt on the evidence they had heard, for otherwise they would not have committed him for trial in the first place'! Consequently, they returned a verdict-of Guilty. The juryman in question was, astonishingly enough, an Assistant Bank Manager of one of the national banks. The writer took great pains to impress upon him that the jury had approached their task on a totally wrong footing. It was only after lengthy discussion that he was finally persuaded to accept the view that the jury (as a whole) had not discharged their function properly. Now, since an Assistant Bank Manager took that line (in presuming the defendant guilty simply because he had been committed for trial by the justices), one is left wondering how tempting it may be for many other jurors - as evidently it must have been for the other eleven jurymen in the instant case - belonging to less humble professions to labour under the same misapprehension and cause a similar miscarriage of justice.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most