Criminal Courts and Lay People

Created by: SpringGirl126
Created on: 10-01-24 15:02

C v DPP (1994)
(Case Stated Appeals)

The case was appealed to the House of Lords who overruled the Divisional Court, holding that the law was still that a child of this age was presumed not to know they were doing wrong. The original conviction was held.

1 of 8

Hanif v United Kingdom (2012)
(Lawyers and Police on Juries)

The police officer juror knew one of the prosecution police witnesses. It was ruled this did not matter. The case continued with the police officer being the foreman of the jury and the defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

2 of 8

R v Kronlid (1996)
(Jury Equity)

The jury sympathised with the defendant's views and found them not guilty.

3 of 8

R v Randle and Pottle (1991)
(Jury Equity)

The defendants were acquitted as the jury possibly decided it was unfair to convict with such a time lapse between the offence and the prosecution (25 years).

4 of 8

R v Young (Stephen) (1995)
(Events outside jury room)

Four jurors used a Ouija board and returned a guilty verdict based on this. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

5 of 8

R v Karakaya (2005)
(Extraneous Material)

The jury convicted Karakaya. The conviction was quashed due to outside information obtained by the jury during deliberations. A retrial was ordered and Karakaya was acquitted by the jury in the second trial.

6 of 8

R v West (1996)
(Media influence)

West appealed saying media coverage made it impossible for a fair trial. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. They said the trial judge had given adequate warning to the jury to consider only evidence presented in court.

7 of 8

R v Twomey and others (2009)
(Jury Tampering)

Three previous trials had collapsed and there had been a 'serious attempt at jury tampering' in the last of these. The trial proceeded to a conclusion before a single judge.

8 of 8

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Hanif v United Kingdom (2012)
(Lawyers and Police on Juries)

Card 3

Front

The jury sympathised with the defendant's views and found them not guilty.

Back

Card 4

Front

The defendants were acquitted as the jury possibly decided it was unfair to convict with such a time lapse between the offence and the prosecution (25 years).

Back

Card 5

Front

Four jurors used a Ouija board and returned a guilty verdict based on this. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial.

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

Criminal Courts and Lay People