The jury that said no to the judge

In 1670, two Quakers, William Mead and William Penn, were facing an unfair charge "seditious assembly" after preaching in London. The jury refused to convict. The judge angrily locked them up for two nights without meat, drink, fire, tobacco or a chamber pot. The jurors were all punished by hefty fine and were imprisoned pending payment. Four, led by John Bushell, refused to pay and spent months in prison. They were eventually released by another judge. The case established the jury’s right to follow its own conscience even if that meant contradicting the opinion of the judge.

Sex and hysterics

In 1987 Cynthia Payne was found not guilty of charges of controlling prostitutes. She organised sex parties for gain in a suburban house in Streatham, southwest London. Some of the clients were senior police officers, former squadron leaders and senior citizens. During the trial the jury had to consider scenes of tumultuous partying recounted by police officers who had attended the parties in disguise. When the uniformed police burst in they found distinguished gentlemen having sex with women on the stairs, in beds and in the bath. The jury repeatedly fell into hysterical laughter. The judge warned them that the case was "a criminal trial, not a form of entertainment". But they seemed to disagree, acquitting Ms Payne in the teeth of all the evidence.

Not the spirit of the law

In 1993 Stephen Young, 35, was unanimously convicted by a jury at Hove Crown Court in East Sussex of two murders. He was jailed for life. It later came to light, however, that during the time the jury was out, three jurors who were wavering about the best verdict used a Ouija board to consult with one of Mr Young's alleged victims. They held a séance to ask the victims who killed them. A juror claimed that they conjured up the spirit of Harry Fuller, who was killed with his wife Nicola. The spirit allegedly confirmed that the defendant was their killer. Using the board, the jurors had spelled out the name of the victims, the type of gun referred to in the evidence and the message: "Vote guilty tomorrow." The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. Mr Young was again convicted - this time on the basis of terrestrial evidence.

A very criminal court

An Old Bailey judge was forced to order a retrial when two jurors nearly came to blows after one had accused the other of burgling his flat. The row had been simmering from the very start of the burglary trial in 1993 when, during a break for legal submissions, one juror accused the other of smoking in a no-smoking area. Two days later the accuser arrived in court in a foul mood because his home had been burgled. He immediately blamed the other juror calling him a ***** ***** and claiming that he had taken his name and address from a label on his rucksack. As tempers threatened to boil over the two jurors were dismissed.

What kind of chavery is this?

In 1996 in London a trial took place involving what became known as the Jury from Hell. The jury was trying a man called Ray Lee for the killing of a young police constable, PC Walters, in Ilford, Essex. The jury maddened barristers, caused untold anguish to the deceased’s parents, left an usher in tears and the taxpayer with a £250,000 bill. The jury appeared to be unusually young and immature, squabbled over the issue of smoking, sent notes complaining about each other to the judge, demanded a change of hotel to one with a gym 30 miles away, then turned up late one morning because some of them had been working out. Two jurors spent their breaks passionately connected in the court corridor. Eventually, when they failed to reach a verdict, the judge dismissed them and ordered a retrial.

Today you will meet an angry judge

In July 1998, a juror at Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court was barred from the trial of a man charged with grievous bodily harm after he requested the defendant’s star sign so he could reach a verdict. The juror, a man in his twenties, had written a note to the judge asking for the accused's exact time and date of birth so that he could draw up an astrological chart to see what it foretold. Judge Esman Faulks discharged the juror on the ground that consulting such a chart fell outside the terms of his oath to consider only the facts before the court.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones