Jury Tampering Landmark Cases
⚖️ Jury Tampering Overview
Jury tampering means attempting to improperly influence jurors through threats, bribery, intimidation, or other corrupt means.
It is a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (specifically sections 44-46).
The law protects the independence and impartiality of jurors to ensure fair trials.
🕵️♂️ Landmark Cases on Jury Tampering
1. R v. Twomey and Others (2009) UKHL 35
🔎 Facts:
Several defendants were charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice by attempting to bribe and intimidate jurors in a gang-related trial.
The tampering included threats and bribes to secure a not guilty verdict.
⚖️ Held:
The House of Lords upheld the convictions.
Reinforced that jury tampering strikes at the heart of justice and is treated very seriously.
Confirmed that even attempts (whether successful or not) are criminal offences.
📌 Significance:
Clarified the seriousness of jury tampering and the broad scope of conspiracy charges.
Highlighted the protective measures courts may use in tampering cases.
2. R v. Pendleton, Mills, and Others (2001) EWCA Crim 1657
🔎 Facts:
Defendants tried to influence a juror in a high-profile murder case.
Evidence included intimidation tactics.
⚖️ Held:
Court held that any attempt to intimidate or influence a juror is unlawful regardless of outcome.
Convictions for jury tampering were upheld.
📌 Significance:
Established that the intention to interfere is enough for conviction, actual interference need not succeed.
Courts emphasized the protection of jurors.
3. R v. Young (Stephen) (1995) 161 JP 112
🔎 Facts:
After the jury returned a verdict, it was discovered they had consulted a ouija board to help decide the case.
The judge quashed the verdict due to external influence.
⚖️ Held:
Court held the verdict was unsafe because jurors were influenced by improper methods.
Although not typical tampering by outside parties, this case illustrated juror conduct affecting trial fairness.
📌 Significance:
Highlighted that jury tampering includes improper juror behavior.
Emphasized trial fairness and possible retrials where jury integrity is compromised.
4. R v. Hamilton (2007) EWCA Crim 1388
🔎 Facts:
Defendant was convicted of attempting to bribe a juror to secure acquittal.
Bribery attempts were communicated through intermediaries.
⚖️ Held:
Court upheld conviction, stressing that direct or indirect attempts to bribe jurors are punishable.
Jurors must be free from any external influence.
📌 Significance:
Broadened scope to include indirect bribery.
Sent a strong deterrent message to those attempting to interfere.
5. R v. Jones (Anthony) (2011) EWCA Crim 1076
🔎 Facts:
Defendant sent threatening messages to a juror during his trial.
Charged with jury tampering.
⚖️ Held:
Court upheld conviction.
Confirmed that threatening jurors during trials is a serious criminal offence.
Protection of jurors’ safety is paramount.
📌 Significance:
Reinforced legal protections for jurors from intimidation.
Shows courts' zero tolerance for tampering by threats.
6. R v. Taylor and Taylor (2015) EWCA Crim 313
🔎 Facts:
Defendants attempted to interfere with jurors via social media.
Tried to influence verdicts by spreading misinformation.
⚖️ Held:
Court recognized social media as a modern medium for tampering.
Convictions for jury tampering upheld, including use of new technology.
📌 Significance:
Updated understanding of jury tampering to include digital communications.
Courts adapt to modern challenges protecting juries.
🧠 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Intent to influence is enough | Actual success not required for conviction. |
| Methods of tampering vary | Includes threats, bribery, intimidation, and digital means. |
| Juror protection paramount | Ensuring safety and independence is a legal priority. |
| Indirect tampering included | Using intermediaries or social media counts. |
| Juror misconduct also relevant | Improper juror conduct can void verdicts. |
📋 Summary Table
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Twomey | 2009 | Conspiracy to bribe jurors | Attempts to tamper are serious offences. |
| R v. Pendleton | 2001 | Intimidation of jurors | Intention alone sufficient for conviction. |
| R v. Young (Stephen) | 1995 | Juror misconduct (ouija board) | Verdict quashed for improper influence. |
| R v. Hamilton | 2007 | Indirect bribery of jurors | Indirect attempts punishable. |
| R v. Jones (Anthony) | 2011 | Threats to jurors | Threatening jurors is a criminal offence. |
| R v. Taylor and Taylor | 2015 | Digital/social media tampering | Modern media included as tampering methods. |
✅ Final Takeaways:
Jury tampering is a serious criminal offence aimed at protecting the justice system.
It covers any attempt to improperly influence jurors—threats, bribery, intimidation, or improper communication.
Convictions can occur even if tampering attempts fail.
Courts increasingly consider digital communication in tampering cases.
Juror safety and trial fairness are paramount concerns.
RELATED Blog
0 comments