R. v. Gough (R.B.), (1993) 155 N.R. 81 (HL)

• Case Date: May 20, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 155 N.R. 81 (HL)

R. v. Gough (R.B.) (1993), 155 N.R. 81 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

Regina v. Robert Brian Gough (appellant)

Indexed As: R. v. Gough (R.B.)

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Ackner,

Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley

and Lord Woolf

May 20, 1993.

Summary:

Robert Brian Gough and David Stephen Gough were brothers. They were charged in connection with eight robberies committed in Liverpool between 1989-1990. The first seven were very similar in that they involved a betting shop and two armed masked men. During the committal proceedings, the Crown asked that David Stephen Gough be discharged because of insufficient evidence. Robert Brian Gough was charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit the robberies with David Stephen Gough.

The Liverpool Crown Court convicted Robert Brian Gough and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. At the sentencing, it was discovered that one of the members of the jury was the next door neighbour of David Stephen Gough. Robert Brian Gough appealed the conviction on the ground, inter alia, of bias.

The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, dismissed the appeal. Robert Brian Gough appealed.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2083

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Pecuniary interest of member - The House of Lords considered the issue of bias by a juror - Their Lord­ships went on to formulate a test to be applied in situations of alleged bias - The same test could be applied whether the alleged bias was on the part of either a judge or juror - Their Lordships stated that the question of an objective test for bias did not arise in cases where a member of the tribunal was discovered to have a pecuniary interest in the proceedings - In those instances, "[t]he nature of the interest is such that public confidence in the ad­ministration of justice requires that the decision should not stand" - See para­graphs 12, 19 and 40.

Administrative Law - Topic 2087

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - The House of Lords considered the issue of the appropriate test to be used in cases involving allegations of a perception of bias by a member of the tribunal (the reasonable suspicion test vs. the real like­lihood test) - Their Lordships stated the test in terms of being in the nature of a real danger rather than a real likelihood - Therefore, after ascertaining the relevant circumstances, "was there a real danger of bias on the part of the relevant member of the tribunal in question, in the sense that he might unfairly regard (or have unfairly regarded) with favour, or disfavour, the case of a party to the issue under con­sideration by him; ..." - See paragraphs 22 and 40.

Administrative Law - Topic 2089

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (incl. bias) - Bias, pecuniary - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2083 ].

Courts - Topic 685

Judges - Disqualifications - Bias, general - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2083 and 2087 ].

Courts - Topic 691

Judges - Disqualification - Bias, reason­able apprehension of bias - [See Admin­istrative Law - Topic 2087 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - Gough and his brother were detained in regard to a number of armed robberies - The charges against the brother were dropped because of a lack of evidence - Gough was charged with a single count of conspiring with the brother to commit the robberies - Gough was convicted at trial by judge and jury - At the sentencing, it was discovered that one of the jurors was the next door neighbour of the brother against whom the charges had been dropped - The juror had never discerned that the person named as the other con­spirator was in fact her neighbour - Gough appealed on the ground of bias - The House of Lords found there was no real danger of bias and dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4312

Procedure - Jury - General - Impartiality - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2087 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Barnsley Licensing Justices; Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victual­lers' Association, [1960] 2 Q.B. 167 (C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 (Div. Ct.), overruled. [para. 8].

R. v. Spencer, [1987] A.C. 128 (H.L.), consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Rand, [1866] L.R. 1 Q.B. 230, consd. [para. 12].

Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal (1853), 3 H.L. Cas. 759 (H.L.), dist. [para. 12].

Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Jus­tices, [1926] A.C. 586 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Sunderland Justices, [1901] 2 K.B. 357, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Bath Compensation Authority, [1925] 1 K.B. 685, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Camborne Justices; Ex parte Pearce, [1955] 1 Q.B. 41 (Div. Ct.), apprvd. [para. 17].

Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. v. Lannon, [1969] 1 Q.B. 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Uxbridge Justices; Ex parte Bur­bridge, The Times, 21 June 1972, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McLean; Ex parte Aikens (1974), 139 L.G. Rev. 261, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Altrincham Justices; Ex parte N. Pennington, [1975] Q.B. 549 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Liverpool City Justices; Ex parte Topping, [1983] 1 W.L.R. 119 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hannam v. Bradford City Council, [1970] 1 W.L.R. 937 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Pennington (1985), 81 Cr. App. Rep. 217, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v.. Sawyer (1980), 71 Cr. App. Rep. 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Putnam (1990), 93 Cr. App. Rep. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morris (Otherwise Williams) (1990), 93 Cr. App. Rep. 102, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Box, [1964] 1 Q.B. 430, refd to. [para. 24].

Ardahalian v. Unifert International S.A. (The Elissar), [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 84, refd to. [para. 26].

Bremer Handelsgesellschaft m b H v. Ets Soules et Cie., [1985] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 160, affd. [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 199 (C.A.) refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Benet A. Hytner, Q.C., and David Boulton, for the appellant;

Brian Leverson, Q.C., and A. Moran, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in London, England, by Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Ackner, Lord Mustill, Lord Slynn of Hadley and Lord Woolf, of the House of Lords, on January 27, 28, 1993.

On May 20, 1993, the following speeches were delivered:

Lord Goff of Chieveley - see paragraphs 1 to 28;

Lord Ackner - see paragraph 29;

Lord Mustill - see paragraph 30;

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraph 31;

Lord Woolf - see paragraphs 32 to 40.