Police juror did not invalidate verdict

Jury's decision protected by statute where no appearance of bias

News, 29 August 2005

The presence on a jury of a former special constable who acted as forewoman did not not invalidate its verdict, despite the forewoman being ineligible for jury service, the appeal court has held.

The court was refusing an appeal by an accused named only as AR, convicted at Airdrie Sheriff Court of two charges of lewd, indecent and libidinous practices. The problem with the juror had come to light when the juror was also balloted for the following case and asked if there were any police witnesses from the division in which she had served - a different division from those in AR's case. The sheriff then discharged her.

AR's counsel accepted that section 1(4) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that the fact that a person serving on a jury is ineligible for jury service "shall not in itself affect the validity of any verdict returned by that jury in the trial". However he argued that this had now to be read subject to the fair trial provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and an informed and objective observer would conclude from the presence of an ineligible juror that the proceedings lacked an appearance of impartiality and the verdict constituted a miscarriage of justice.

Speaking for the court, Lord Justice Clerk Gill said that counsel had given no reason why the Convention should require the court to read section 1(4) as meaning the opposite of what it said. This was not a case where there was some connection between the juror and the accused or any witness in the case. "On the contrary," he continued, "her scrupulous attitude in the second trial, where some personal connection might have emerged, indicates that she had no such personal connection in the first. She took her juror's oath and we have no reason to think that she failed to keep it. We can see no reason why an informed observer could reasonably have concluded that the verdict in the appellant's trial lacked the appearance of impartiality. In our view, there was no miscarriage of justice."

The court's decision can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005HCJA94.html .