Information Note on the Court’s case-law 18
May 2000
Sander v. the United Kingdom - 34129/96
Judgment 9.5.2000 [Section III]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Impartial tribunal
Alleged racial prejudice of jurors: violation
Facts: During the trial of the applicant, an Asian, one of the jurors wrote a note to the court in which he alleged that at least two of the other jurors had made openly racist remarks and jokes. After discussing the matter with counsel in chambers and hearing submissions in open court, the judge reminded the members of the jury of their oath and requested them to search their consciences overnight and indicate if they were unable to try the case solely on the evidence. The following day, the judge received a letter in which all the jurors, including the one who had made the allegations, refuted the allegations and confirmed their intention to reach a verdict without any racial bias. The judge also received a letter from one of the jurors who explained that he might have made jokes, apologised if any offence had been caused and affirmed that he was in no way racially biased. The judge decided not to discharge the jury, which subsequently convicted the applicant. The applicant's appeal was rejected.
Law: Article 6 § 1: As with a judge, the subjective impartiality of a juror must be presumed until there is proof to the contrary. It is established that at least one juror made comments that could be understood as jokes about Asians, but this does not on its own amount to evidence of actual bias, and since it was not possible for the judge to question the jurors about the nature and context of the remarks, it has not been established that the court lacked subjective impartiality. As to objective impartiality, the letter from all the jurors cannot on its own discredit the allegations made in the note: firstly, one juror indirectly admitted to having made remarks and jokes, which in the context of court proceedings take on a different hue from those made in a more informal atmosphere; secondly, the fact that the letter was signed by the juror who had made the allegations casts some doubt on its credibility and since his identity was known his position must have been compromised; thirdly, the average person would avoid openly admitting to being racist, especially while on jury service. Moreover, not much weight can be given to the judge's redirection, since an admonition or direction, however clear and forceful, would not change racist views overnight. Thus, the judge's direction could not dispel the reasonable impression and fear of a lack of impartiality. The judge should have reacted in a more robust manner and by failing to do so he did not provide sufficient guarantees to exclude any objectively justified doubts as to the court's impartiality.
Conclusion: violation (4 votes to 3).
Article 41: The Court considered that there was no causal link between the violation and any alleged damage and the applicant had made no claim in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy