Richardson, R v

Richardson, R v

The presence of a disqualified juror does not render the verdict unsafe in the absence of evidence of prejudice or unfairness; section 18 of the Juries Act 1974 is a complete answer unless injustice is shown.

Parties
Applicant: Eric James Richardson; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Qualification, Unsafe Verdicts, Majority Verdicts, Sexual Offences, Probation and Jury Service
Criminal Law Procedure Jury Qualification Unsafe Verdicts Majority Verdicts Sexual Offences Probation and Jury Service

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric James Richardson

Applicant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presence of a disqualified juror renders the verdict unsafe
  2. 2 Whether section 18 of the Juries Act 1974 prevents reversal of judgment due to juror disqualification

Ratio Decidendi

The presence of a disqualified juror does not render the verdict unsafe in the absence of evidence of prejudice or unfairness; section 18 of the Juries Act 1974 is a complete answer unless injustice is shown.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • leave to appeal granted
  • appeal against conviction dismissed