Denied jury challenges voided Miller trial; one charge sent back

Tesha Miller’s convictions as an accessory before and after the fact to murder were quashed on 27 March. The Court of Appeal found that he had been wrongly limited to two peremptory jury challenges when entitled to four.

The defence had attempted to exercise another challenge during jury selection and was stopped. The court held that denying the available challenges rendered the trial a nullity. Its analysis tied the entitlement to the offence and sentencing provisions applicable at the time; it did not accept every argument advanced about jointly tried offences.

The consequences differed between the counts. The court entered an acquittal for accessory after the fact because Miller had already served that sentence. It ordered a new trial for accessory before the fact after weighing seriousness, evidence, witness availability and delay.

The new trial was to begin within six months after completion of the other trial proceedings in which Miller was then engaged. The order provided for a stay if the prosecution missed that period, unless the defence caused the delay. It was not a six-month deadline running from this judgment.

The jury and penalty provisions are discussed as applicable to the historical trial. A new trial was ordered on the before-the-fact count; this report does not determine guilt or whether the later timetable has been met. Later proceedings not checked.