An update on the previously blogged matter of the plight of Richard Latham, QC, the advocate whose victory was threatened because a lovelorn juror sent him champagne: “A woman juror who sent a flirtatious note and a bottle of champagne to the prosecuting counsel after a serious fraud trial ended cannot be questioned about the incident, the Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.”
That doesn't mean, however, that poor Mr. Latham is out of the woods. The question of whether there “might be grounds for arguing that there was 'an appearance of bias'” will “be considered further by the Court of Appeal in the spring,” albeit it seems without the benefit of the juror's testimony.
