AM, R. v

AM, R. v

Although there was a technical irregularity in the jury selection process, no objection was taken by the defence at trial or as soon as practicable thereafter. Section 18(2) of the Juries Act 1974 precludes the appellant from relying on this irregularity to set aside the conviction. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: A M; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Selection, Procedural Irregularity, Appeal Against Conviction
Criminal Law Jury Selection Procedural Irregularity Appeal Against Conviction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the manner of jury empanelment contravened section 11(1) of the Juries Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether any such irregularity rendered the trial a nullity under section 18 of the Juries Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a technical irregularity in the jury selection process, no objection was taken by the defence at trial or as soon as practicable thereafter. Section 18(2) of the Juries Act 1974 precludes the appellant from relying on this irregularity to set aside the conviction. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Conviction upheld
  • Issues raised in this appeal may now be published, but the identity of the victim must not be made public; initials 'AM' to be used in reporting.