The Court of Appeal has quashed a man’s convictions for firearm and ammunition offences and attempted aggravated burglary, ordering a retrial after finding that the trial judge handled a juror’s concerns inappropriately.
The judgment, delivered on 31 July 2015 by Mr Justice Birmingham, concerned a conviction entered in Cork Circuit Court on 31 October 2014. The man had been sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.
The prosecution alleged at trial that he attempted to enter a building in Glanmire, Co Cork, while carrying a pump-action shotgun. Its case was that members of the Regional Support Unit at the house recognised him with the gun, and that he escaped before being arrested later at his home. He pursued an alibi defence.
The appeal focused on a report that a juror wanted to be excused because other jurors were discussing the case before all the evidence had been heard, contrary to the trial judge’s direction. The judge told counsel that the juror was reassured after being reminded of the direction and no longer wished to be discharged. The issue was dealt with in the jury room, without the parties being asked how to proceed.
Defence counsel later asked the trial judge to discharge the jury, arguing that the discussions might mean jurors had ignored other directions. The judge refused, saying the matter could be kept within the trial. The appellant challenged that decision, as well as the way the juror’s concern had been handled.
The Court of Appeal said the reported concern was significant because the juror appeared to believe fellow jurors were acting inappropriately and wished to distance themselves from what was happening. The court said both sides should have been told about the concern and given an opportunity to offer their views. It also criticised the fact that the defence learned of the issue only after junior counsel overheard part of a conversation.
The court said a procedure used in a previous case offered a useful comparison: counsel were informed, the issue was raised in open court, and questions were put to jurors to establish whether anyone had reached a concluded view. The court said a similar inquiry could have established whether jurors’ minds remained open.
Finding the procedure adopted in this case inappropriate, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. It did not address the appellant’s other grounds of appeal, saying that was unnecessary. The judgment states that a retrial was clearly appropriate.