Continuance of criminal trial on death or discharge of juror

Q: Is article 21(2) of The Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 a strict liability offence?

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

article 21(2) of The Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996

Status not determined
Strict liability
Courts, police, prisons and the administration of justice

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

2 On a trial for any offence punishable with death paragraph (1) shall not apply on the death or discharge of any member of the jury unless assent to its then applying is given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused or each of the accused.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds: a person
Conduct: breaching the provision
Fault element: Strict liability
Burden of proof: No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach article 21(2)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

On these words it is an offence to apply on the death or discharge of any member of the jury unless assent to its then applying is given in writing by or on behalf of both the prosecution and the accused or each of the accused.
Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

Penalty

Mode of trial: Not determined
Maximum fine: Not determined
Maximum prison (summary): Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017
The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.
General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019
The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.
Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales
How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status: Status not determined
Made: 24 April 1996
In force from: Not determined
Extent: Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

This Order replaces the Juries Acts (Northern Ireland) 1871 to 1974. The Order revises the law relating to qualification for jury service and the empanelling, summoning and balloting of jurors. It also further assimilates the law regarding coroners' juries. This Order is concerned with the procedure relating to juries and does not affect the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 in so far as those Acts make provision as to which actions or offences shall, or shall not, be tried by a jury.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Northern Ireland Commons · 4 March 1996
That the draft Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 Lords · 12 March 1996
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill Lords · 19 March 2007 · Lord Goldsmith
I shall explain the position. I need to set this in context. Clause 12 amends the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to abolish the defendant’s right of peremptory challenge. In England and Wales, peremptory challenge was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. From what has been said so far in the debate, I do not understand that the basic principle that it is right to abolish the right of peremptory…

Other offences in the same instrument

Failure to fill up and return form of returnarticle 25
Failure to fill up and return form of returnarticle 25(c)
Qualification for jury servicearticle 3(5)

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.60.

Basis: the provision says the conduct is “punishable”
Confidence: 0.60 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source

This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
The Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
Courts, police, prisons and the administration of justiceOther offences on the same subject
Offences created in 1996