R. v. Connor et al., (2004) 317 N.R. 201 (HL)

• Case Date: January 22, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 317 N.R. 201 (HL)

R. v. Connor (2004), 317 N.R. 201 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. MR.002

Regina v. Connor and another (appellants) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

Regina v. Mirza (appellant) (On appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Conjoined appeals)

([2004] UKHL 2)

Indexed As: R. v. Connor et al.

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Steyn, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

January 22, 2004.

Summary:

Mizra was convicted of indecent assault and in separate proceedings, Connor and Rollock were convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The accused appealed, arguing that the convic­tions should be set aside because of matters which occurred during jury deliberations. In the Mizra case, six days after the verdict, a juror wrote a letter to counsel for the ac­cused, claiming that the jury had, during deliberations, over the juror's objections, attached undue significance to the use of an interpreter by the accused (i.e., that the jury considered that the use of the interpreter was some part of a devious ploy). In the case of Connor and Rollock, there was a letter from a juror who claimed that during jury deliber­ations the jury could not decide which of the accused was guilty so they convicted both to teach them a lesson.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, considering itself bound by a long line of authority respecting the common law rule on jury secrecy (i.e., the rule that it is never permissible after a verdict was rendered to admit evidence of what happened during the deliberations of a jury). The accused ap­pealed again.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeals. The majority of the court held that the com­mon law rule on jury secrecy should be main­tained. Some members of the panel ex­pressed the view that it should, however, be made clearer to the jury that they could raise matters of concern with the judge during trial. Lord Steyn, dissenting in part, opined that the rule should be modified to allow the admission of evidence of what happened in jury deliberations in exceptional cases. Lord Steyn would have allowed the appeal in the Mizra case, but would have dismissed the ap­peal in the Connor and Rollock cases.

Criminal Law - Topic 4306.1

Procedure - Jury - Disclosure of jury pro­ceedings - The House of Lords discussed the common law rule respecting jury secrecy (i.e., the rule that it is never per­missible after a verdict was rendered to admit evidence of what happened during the deliberations of a jury) - The court held that the common law rule on jury secrecy should be maintained - Some members of the panel expressed the view that it should, however, be made clearer to the jury that they could raise matters of concern with the judge during trial.

Cases Noticed:

McIlkenny v. West Midlands (Chief Con­stable), [1980] Q.B. 283, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for the Home Department); Ex parte Simms, [2000] 2 A.C. 115; 246 N.R. 15 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 4].

Gregory v. United Kingdom (1997), 25 E.H.R.R. 577 (Eur. Ct. Human Rights), refd to. [paras. 9, 42, 59, 140, 154].

Rojas v. Berllaque et al., [2003] N.R. Uned. 299; [2003] UKPC 76, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Thompson, [1962] 1 All E.R. 65, refd to. [para. 11].

Ellis v. Deheer, [1922] 2 K.B. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 41, 99, 142].

Attorney General v. New Statesman and National Publishing Co., [1981] Q.B. 1, refd to. [paras. 11, 87].

R. v. Miah, [1997] 2 Cr. App. R. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 41, 101, 142].

Roylance v. General Medical Council (No. 2), [2000] 1 A.C. 311, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Qureshi, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 518; [2002] EWCA 1807 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 35, 101, 138].

Ras Behari Lal v. King-Emperor (1933), 50 T.L.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 11, 44, 104].

R. v. Hood, [1968] 1 W.L.R. 773, refd to. [paras. 11, 106].

R. v. Brandon (1969), 53 Cr. App. R. 466, refd to. [paras. 11, 43, 106].

R. v. Young (S.), [1995] Q.B. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 11, 45, 82, 134].

Stewart v. Fraser (1830), 5 Murray 166 (Scot.), refd to. [paras. 11, 97].

Swankie v. HM Advocate, [1999] S.C.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 344; 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 11, 45, 114].

R. v. Brown (A.) (1907), 7 N.S.W.S.R. 290 (Aus.), refd to. [paras. 11, 41].

R. v. Papadopoulos, [1979] 1 N.Z.L.R. 621, refd to. [paras. 11, 102].

R. v. Nanan, [1986] A.C. 860; 79 N.R. 121 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 12, 105, 172].

R. v. Millward, [1999] 1 Cr. App. R. 61, refd to. [paras. 12, 105, 172].

Sander v. United Kingdom (2000), 31 E.H.R.R. 1003 (Eur. Ct. Human Rights), refd to. [paras. 18, 77, 141, 151].

Remli v. France (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 253 (Eur. Ct. Human Rights), refd to. [paras. 18, 110, 141, 156].

Vaise v. Delaval (1785), 1 T.R. 11; 99 E.R. 944 (K.B.), refd to. [paras. 41, 95].

Harvey v. Hewitt (1840), 8 Dowl. 598, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Zacharias (1987), 39 C.C.C.(3d) 280 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Armstrong, [1922] 2 K.B. 555, refd to. [paras. 47, 159].

United Kingdom (Attorney General) v. Associated Newspapers Ltd. et al., [1994] 2 A.C. 238; 164 N.R. 330 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 80].

Scottish Criminal Cases Review Com­missioner, Petitioners, Re, [2001] S.L.T. 1198 (H.C.), refd to. [paras. 85, 172].

Pirie v. Caledonian Railway Co. (1890), 17 R. 1157, refd to. [para. 97].

Tanner v. United States (1987), 483 U.S. 107, refd to. [para. 98].

McDonald v. Pless (1915), 238 U.S. 264, refd to. [para. 98].

Boston v. Bagshaw (W.S.) & Sons, [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1135, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Wooller (1817), 2 Stark. 111 (N.S.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Thomas, [1933] 2 K.B. 489 (C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (1981), 4 E.H.R.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 112, 152].

R. v. R.M.G., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 362; 202 N.R. 1; 81 B.C.A.C. 81; 132 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 113].

McCadden v. HM Advocate, [1985] J.C. 98 (Scot.), refd to. [para. 113].

Russell v. HM Advocat, [1991] J.C. 194; [1992] S.L.T. 25 (Scot.), refd to. [paras. 113, 142].

R. v. Derby Magistrates Court; Ex parte B., [1996] A.C. 487; 189 N.R. 199 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 146].

Pullar v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 391, refd to. [para. 154].

Montgomery v. HM Advocate, [2003] 1 A.C. 641, refd to. [para. 164].

Statutes Noticed:

Contempt Act (U.K.), 1981, sect. 8 [para. 79].

European Convention on Human Rights, sect. 6(1) [para. 5 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Archbold, John Frederick, Criminal Plead­ing, Evidence and Practice (2003), para. 4-254 [para. 126].

Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales Report (2001), c. 5, para. 98 [para. 173].

Baldwin, John, and McConville, Michael, Jury Trials (1979), pp. 130 [para. 60]; 134 [para. 113].

Devlin, Patrick, The Conscience of the Jury (1991), 107 L.Q.R. 398, generally [para. 4].

Devlin, Patrick, Trial by Jury (1956), pp. 41 [para. 6]; 164 [para. 7].

Green, L., Judge and Jury (1930), p. 376 [para. 159].

Hume, Commentaries of the Law of Scot­land respecting Crimes (1797), generally [para. 96].

Hume, Commentaries of the Law of Scot­land respecting Crimes (4th Ed. 1844), p. 429 [para. 96].

Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James II (1849), vol. 2, p. 389 [para. 7].

New Zealand, Law Commission, Evidence, 55th Report (1999), generally [para. 121].

New Zealand, Law Commission, Juries in Criminal Trials, Preliminary Paper 37, (1999), vol. 1, Part 2, paras. 270, 276 [para. 121].

New Zealand, Law Commission, Juries in Criminal Trials, 69th Report (2001), generally [para. 121].

Phipson on Evidence (15th Ed. 2000), para. 24-32 [para. 161].

Renton and Brown, Criminal Procedure (6th Ed.), para. 30-27 [para. 127].

United Kingdom, Criminal Law Revision Committee, Secrecy of Jury Room, 10th Report (1968) (Cmnd 3750), generally [para. 88]; para. 10 [para. 126].

United Kingdom, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales, Report of October 2001, para. 98 [para. 24].

Walker and Walker, The Law of Evidence in Scotland (2nd Ed. 2000), para. 13.20.3 [para. 161].

Wigmore, John Henry, Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1961), para. 2352 [para. 95].

Young, William, Summing-up to Juries in Criminal Cases - What Jury Research says about Current Rules and Practice, [2003] Crim. L.R. 665, p. 689 [para. 122].

Zander, Michael, The Complaining Juror (2000), 150 N.L.J. 723, generally [para. 112].

Counsel:

Not disclosed.

Agents:

Not disclosed.

These appeals were heard by Lord Steyn, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hope of Craig­head, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, of the House of Lords. The decision of the House was de­livered on January 22, 2004, when the fol­lowing opinions were filed:

Lord Steyn, dissenting in part - see para­graphs 1 to 33;

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraphs 34 to 58;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 59 to 129;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 130 to 148;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see paragraphs 149 to 174.