CONFIDENTIALITY: secrecy of jury discussions is 'essential' to the operation of the system

A juror who sent a flirtatious note to a prosecuting QC will not be examined by judges, as three cases in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in the past week upheld the rigid secrecy of jury room deliberations.

The House of Lords said last week that the confidentiality of jury discussions is 'essential' to the operation of the jury system.

However, it left open a question of 'exceptional circumstances' when questioning the jury may be possible.

Courts minister Chris Leslie said the ruling allows the government to consult more widely than it otherwise could have on aspects of jury work.

The House of Lords rejected two appeals where a juror had complained about the way the verdicts were reached.

One complained of racism, and the other of undue haste.

This week, Lord Justice Rose in the Court of Appeal refused to allow inquiries to be made of a jury forewoman or her fellow jurors over the note she sent to Richard Latham QC (see [2004] Gazette, 15 January, 1).

Defence counsel claimed that the forewoman's attraction to Mr Latham may have influenced the verdict.

The Court of Appeal will consider the issue of undue influence in a separate hearing which will be based on the wording of the note alone.

Peter Krivinskas, partner at David Phillips Krivinskas in Manchester who acted for one of the defendants, said: 'The note [which was written as a spoof legal document] is very supportive of our case.

She says Mr Latham is "summonsed" by her, so she fancies herself as a bit of a lawyer.'

In the House of Lords case, Lord Slynn said there are already safeguards in place to protect defendants, such as random jury selection, directions by the judge and the Court of Appeal's power to consider whether there was enough evidence to convict.

But Lord Steyn, dissenting, was highly critical of the majority view.

He said: 'This restrictive view will gnaw at public confidence in juries.'

The House of Lords cases are likely to be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Lord Steyn said: 'It would be an astonishing thing for the ECHR to hold, when the point directly arises before it, that a miscarriage of justice may be ignored in the interests of the jury system...

such a view would be utterly indefensible.'

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, said: 'It is a fundamental tenet of the jury process that the confidentiality of jury deliberations is absolute.

In general terms, we can all be relieved by the decision of the House of Lords.'

The Department of Constitutional Affairs will publish a consultation in the spring to consider whether research should be conducted on jury deliberations and propriety.

See [2004] Gazette, 29 January, page 16

Rachel Rothwell