Man facing second trial after jurors’ unauthorised cigarette break led to acquittal

A MAN who was acquitted of knife charges because jurors had an unauthorised cigarette break is facing a second trial.

Grant Paterson, 25, was freed after a sheriff learned that three jurors had left the jury room for a smoke when they should have remained secluded to consider a verdict.

However, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh ruled yesterday that the sheriff had been mistaken in thinking an acquittal was mandatory in such circumstances.

The judges set aside his decision, opening the way for the Crown to take Paterson to trial again.

He was accused of possessing an offensive weapon in Westfield Street, Falkirk, on 2 October last year, and committing a breach of the peace by brandishing the knife at three men, shouting and swearing, chasing them and challenging them to fight.

After a day of evidence at Falkirk Sheriff Court, the jury was invited to retire to consider its verdict. Almost immediately, three members of the jury asked permission to leave the room for a smoke, and a court officer took them to the back door of the building and told the others not to begin their deliberations until the smokers had returned.

Sheriff Thomas McCartney learned what had happened and held it to have been a breach of the strict rules governing juries. After seclusion, those forbid, except under permission of the judge, anyone going into the jury room or jurors leaving the room.

Sheriff McCartney considered he was obliged to acquit Paterson, but the Crown challenged his decision at the appeal court.

Lord Carloway, sitting with Lady Clark and Lord McEwan, said that a break in the seclusion of the jury resulted in an acquittal when a judge or sheriff was satisfied that the break “has as its purpose some improper influence or pressure being put on the jury.”

In this case, there was an absence of any material to suggest anything improper, added Lord Carloway.

“It is not possible to uphold the sheriff’s decision to acquit,” he said.

“In relation to cigarette or other breaks, these can be authorised by the judge or sheriff under proper supervision and direction. The court has to be satisfied that appropriate arrangements are made for these breaks. Court officials must be made aware of their responsibility to seek proper authority of the judge or sheriff before jurors are separated after seclusion,” said Lord Carloway.