Trial By Jury Landmark Rulings
⚖️ 1. Bushell’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006
Facts:
William Penn (a Quaker) and William Mead were charged with unlawful assembly after holding a religious meeting contrary to the Conventicle Act. The jury refused to convict them despite pressure from the judge.
Issue:
Whether jurors could be punished or coerced by the judge for delivering a verdict contrary to the court’s direction.
Judgment:
Chief Justice Vaughan of the Court of Common Pleas held that jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. The jury’s role is independent, and they are judges of fact.
Importance:
Established the independence of the jury from judicial interference.
Laid the foundation for the right to a free and impartial jury.
Marked a major victory for freedom of conscience and trial fairness.
⚖️ 2. R v. Wang [2005] UKHL 9
Facts:
The defendant, a Buddhist monk, was found with a sword in a public place. He claimed he had it for religious reasons. The trial judge directed the jury to convict as there was "no defence in law."
Issue:
Can a judge direct a jury to return a verdict of guilt?
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that a trial judge may never direct a jury to convict a defendant, no matter how clear the evidence seems. The jury must always be free to decide.
Importance:
Reaffirmed jury independence and the sacrosanct nature of their decision-making.
Ensured that even in clear-cut cases, justice must remain in the jury’s hands.
⚖️ 3. R v. Twomey and Others [2009] EWCA Crim 1035
Facts:
The defendants were accused of armed robbery. Due to repeated attempts at jury tampering, the Crown applied for the trial to be conducted without a jury.
Issue:
Can a criminal trial be held without a jury under exceptional circumstances?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal held that a non-jury trial can be ordered where there is a “real and present danger” of jury tampering and no alternative measures can secure justice.
Importance:
Recognized exceptions to jury trials in extreme cases.
Highlighted the balance between fair trial rights and justice system integrity.
One of the few modern instances of trial without jury in England.
⚖️ 4. R v. McKenna [1960] 1 QB 411
Facts:
During a criminal trial, the judge threatened the jury that if they did not reach a verdict within ten minutes, they would be locked up for the night.
Issue:
Was the verdict valid when the jury was pressured by the judge?
Judgment:
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction, holding that the verdict was not given freely and independently.
Importance:
Reinforced that a jury’s verdict must be voluntary.
Judicial pressure or threats undermine the fairness of the trial.
Strengthened the doctrine of jury autonomy.
⚖️ 5. R v. Ponting [1985] Crim LR 318
Facts:
A civil servant leaked information to an MP regarding the sinking of an Argentine ship during the Falklands War, claiming it was in the public interest. He was charged under the Official Secrets Act.
Issue:
Whether the jury could acquit despite the judge’s direction that no legal defence existed.
Judgment:
The jury acquitted Ponting, despite the judge’s direction, exercising their right of jury nullification—the power to return a verdict based on conscience.
Importance:
Demonstrated jury nullification, where jurors can refuse to enforce laws they believe unjust.
Showed that juries act as the conscience of society.
Affirmed the moral independence of juries.
⚖️ 6. R v. Owen [1992] Crim LR 705
Facts:
The defendant shot a man who had previously caused the death of his son through careless driving. The evidence of the shooting was clear.
Issue:
Could the jury acquit based on compassion despite overwhelming evidence?
Judgment:
The jury acquitted the defendant. Although legally the act constituted an offence, the jury exercised jury equity, showing mercy.
Importance:
Reinforced the jury’s moral discretion.
Showed that juries can temper law with humanity.
Highlighted that justice is not always synonymous with legal correctness.
⚖️ 7. United States v. Dougherty (1972) 473 F.2d 1113 (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
Facts:
Peace activists broke into an office to protest the Vietnam War. They claimed their actions were justified by moral beliefs.
Issue:
Should juries be instructed about their power to acquit despite evidence of guilt (jury nullification)?
Judgment:
The court acknowledged that juries have the power to nullify but not the right—judges need not instruct them explicitly about this power.
Importance:
Clarified the limits of jury nullification awareness.
Demonstrated the balance between rule of law and jury independence.
Often cited in debates on jury discretion in modern democracies.
⚖️ 8. R v. Stonehouse [1978] AC 55
Facts:
A Member of Parliament staged his own death to claim life insurance. The case was tried by jury.
Issue:
Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove intent to defraud.
Judgment:
The House of Lords held that the jury’s factual findings were paramount and should not be interfered with unless clearly unreasonable.
Importance:
Strengthened the principle that juries are the ultimate arbiters of fact.
Reinforced judicial deference to jury verdicts.
🧾 Conclusion
The above landmark rulings collectively establish the constitutional importance of the jury system:
Bushell’s Case → Jury independence
R v. Wang & R v. McKenna → Freedom from judicial coercion
R v. Twomey → Exceptional non-jury trials allowed
R v. Ponting & R v. Owen → Jury conscience and nullification
U.S. v. Dougherty → Moral discretion within rule of law
The trial by jury thus serves as a cornerstone of democratic justice, ensuring that ordinary citizens remain the final judges of truth and fairness in criminal trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments