Appeal allowed over limited jury selection

Twenty two potential jurors too small a pool for random selection, says appeal court

News, 1 February 2006

A man convicted of indecency against a young girl has had his conviction quashed after the appeal court ruled that too few jurors were available for balloting.

John Brown was found guilty by a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court of lewd and libidinous practices against a girl then aged between four and nine. His legal team had objected to the trial in January 2004 beginning when only 22 potential jurors (15 women and seven men) had turned up for balloting to produce the normal 15. They complained that a jury in a case such as this should be chosen from a balanced list.

Yesterday the criminal appeal court, led by the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill, held that the ballot was "plainly unsatisfactory". Stating that the court was deciding the case on a "commonsense view"rather than a statistical exercise, Lord Gill said: "In our opinion, this case should be decided on the straightforward basis that the balloting of a jury of 15 from a panel of only 22 lacked the appearance of fairness."

The court said that the sheriff, Andrew Normand, had had a simple alternative open to him, since it had already been afternoon, of adjourning until the following morning when more jurors would have been available.

The court expressed its concern at the high rate of excusals and non-attendances at Glasgow Sheriff Court revealed in a report to the court by the sheriff principal, as it was said to be not uncommon for between 20 and 25 jurors to be available for ballot although 60 per court were cited. However the judges said that what was an acceptable minimum, and any rule as to gender balance, should be a matter for legislation.

The Scottish Court Service said that procedures relating to the makeup of juries would now be urgently reviewed.

Leave was given for a new prosecution against Mr Brown.

The court's decision can be read at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2006HCJAC09.html .