J, S, M v R.

J, S, M v R.

The Court held that, although there was a real and present danger of jury tampering, the necessary protective measures for a two-week trial would not be so onerous or intrusive as to justify a judge-alone trial. The statutory conditions for dispensing with a jury were not met, and trial by jury should proceed.

Parties
Appellants: J, S, M; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order for Trial Without Jury
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Jury Tampering, Trial Without Jury, Protective Measures for Juries, Section 44 Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Jury Tampering Trial Without Jury Protective Measures for Juries Section 44 Criminal Justice Act 2003

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J, S, M

Appellants

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order for Trial Without Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory pre-conditions for a non-jury trial under section 44(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were met
  2. 2 Whether protective measures for the jury would be unreasonable or subvert the integrity of the trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, although there was a real and present danger of jury tampering, the necessary protective measures for a two-week trial would not be so onerous or intrusive as to justify a judge-alone trial. The statutory conditions for dispensing with a jury were not met, and trial by jury should proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order for trial without jury set aside
  • Trial to proceed before a jury