Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Kay CrosbyORCiD
This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2016.
For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created several new offences regarding juror misconduct. While this legislation has been passed in response to jurors accessing improper ‘evidence’ online, it is wrong to treat juror misconduct as a new problem. The most famous case on this topic (Bushell’s Case) did not completely prohibit juror punishment, but the rhetorical force of the decision was such that penal practices have until recently been overlooked in the academic literature. This article argues that assessing the new offences is greatly helped by understanding how juror misconduct has been responded to in the past. Drawing on the language of Bushell’s Case itself, as well as new archival research, it argues that previous practices of juror punishment have largely depended on whether particular instances of misconduct related to the juror’s ‘ministerial’ or ‘judicial’ functions; and that ‘judicial’ offences (those relating to verdict formation) have been much less likely to be punished. Rather, such offences have tended to be managed away. If today’s judges continue acting in this way, the new offences are unlikely to be resorted to very often, with the judiciary being much more likely to focus on techniques for avoiding misconduct in the first place.
Author(s): Crosby K
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Legal Studies
Year: 2016
Volume: 36
Issue: 2
Pages: 179-208
Print publication date: 01/06/2016
Online publication date: 21/12/2015
Acceptance date: 27/06/2015
Date deposited: 27/07/2015
ISSN (print): 0261-3875
ISSN (electronic): 1748-121X
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lest.12098
DOI: 10.1111/lest.12098
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric