Mole, R. v

Mole, R. v

The bailiff's improper intervention constituted a serious irregularity that interfered with the free communication between judge and jury, compromising the integrity of the process and rendering the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Maxim Peter Mole
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
conviction quashed; no re-trial ordered
Legal Topics
Jury Irregularity, Majority Verdicts, Jury Bailiff Misconduct, Quashing of Conviction
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Jury Irregularity Majority Verdicts Jury Bailiff Misconduct Quashing of 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Maxim Peter Mole

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improper communication by the jury bailiff with the jury rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the conviction should be quashed due to a serious procedural irregularity
  3. 3 Whether a re-trial should be ordered after quashing the conviction

Ratio Decidendi

The bailiff's improper intervention constituted a serious irregularity that interfered with the free communication between judge and jury, compromising the integrity of the process and rendering the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed; no re-trial ordered

Orders

  • Conviction quashed
  • No order for re-trial