Police officer on jury made trial unfair

20 Dec 2011

The European Court of Human Rights today handed down its judgment in the case of Ilyas Hanif and Bakish Khan v United Kingdom (appn nos. 52999/08 and 61779/08). In a unanimous decision the Chamber held that the applicants’ right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention had been violated by the presence on the jury at their trial in 2007 of a serving police officer.

The applicants were tried for conspiracy to supply heroin.The evidence of police officers was in dispute and in particular Mr Hanif had alleged that there was a third man in his car whilst it was under observation by the police and that it had been this man who had left the drugs in his car. Just after the evidence began a juror informed the judge that he was a serving police officer and knew one of the police witnesses and had had some professional dealings with him in another case. The trial judge had refused a defence application to discharge the police officer from the jury.The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in March 2008 -€“ R.v. Khan (Bakish); R.v. Hanif [2008] 2 Cr. App. R 161 and the court declined to certify a point of law for the House of Lords.

In its decision the European Court emphasised the need to ensure that juries are free from basis and the appearance of bias. The Court noted that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 had only recently changed the law in the United Kingdom to allow police officers to serve on juries and also noted that many other jurisdictions that had jury trial did not alow police officers to serve on juries.

The Court considered that where there was an important conflict regarding police evidence, and a police officer who was personally acquainted with another police officer who was giving evidence was a member of the jury, that juror might favour the evidence of the police. Accordingly Mr Hanif had not been tried by an impartial jury in violation of Article 6.

The court does not say that police officers can never serve on a jury but it is worth recalling the submission made in R.v. Abdroikof [2007] UKHL 37; [2008] 1 Cr. App. R. 280 that “€œthese cases do not involve the ordinary prejudices and predilections to which we are all prone but the possibility of bias (possibly unconscious) which inevitably flows from the presence on a jury of persons professionally committed to one side only of an adversarial trial process”€. This decision is likely to be of assistance to those arguing against the presence on a jury of serving police officers or others involved in the criminal justice system.

Mr Hanif was represented by Garden Court North Chambers’ Mark George QC, who was instructed by Chris Davey from Howells, LLP in Sheffield.

Share this

Chambers news

Chambers news

Supreme Court allows appeal and settles law relating to interest accruing on non-payment of confiscation orders and whether or not interest impacts on default term

Pete Weatherby QC and Matthew Stanbury succeed before the Supreme Court in R (Gene Gibson) v Secretary of State for Justice.

Chambers news

Peter Hodson – Happy Retirement

After 23 years at the Bar, most of them spent at Garden Court North Chambers, Peter Hodson has decided to retire from practice.

Chambers news

No case to answer in a prosecution alleging the murder of a baby by his parents and leave to appeal refused to the prosecution by the Court of Appeal

Garden Court North Chambers' Pete Weatherby QC and Nina Grahame represented C, the father of the baby.

Chambers news

DWP unlawfully delayed paying carer benefits for 4 years

Tom Royston, a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers, appeared in Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Fileccia [2017] EWCA Civ 1907.

Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up