| Bushel's Case | |
|---|---|
.svg) | |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
| Decided | 1670 (1670) |
| Citation | 124E.R. 1006 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Sir John Vaughan |
Bushel’s Case (1670) 124E.R. 1006, also spelledBushell's Case, is a famousEnglish decision on the role ofjuries. It established beyond question the independence of the jury.[1] It also confirmed that theCourt of Common Pleas could issue awrit ofhabeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases.[2]
Bushel's Case arose from a previous case (R v. Penn and Mead orTrial of Penn and Mead, 6How. 951) involving twoQuakers charged withunlawful assembly,William Penn (the future founder ofPennsylvania) andWilliam Mead. They had been arrested in August 1670 for violating theConventicle Act, which forbade religious assemblies of more than five people outside the auspices of theChurch of England. The jury found the two "guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street" but refused to add "to an unlawful assembly". The infuriated judge charged the jury that they "shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept".[3]
The jury modified the verdict to "guilty of speaking to an assembly in Gracechurch Street", whereupon the judge had them locked up overnight without food, water or heat. The judge ordered Penn bound and gagged. Penn protested, shouting to the jury, "You are Englishmen, mind your Privilege, give not away your Right", to which juror Edward Bushel replied, "Nor shall we ever do."[3] Finally, after a two-day fast, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. The judge fined the jury forcontempt of court for returning a verdict contrary to their own findings of fact and removed them to prison until the fine was paid. Penn protested that this violatedMagna Carta and was forcibly removed from the court.[3]
Edward Bushel, a member of the jury, nonetheless refused to pay the fine.
Bushel petitioned theCourt of Common Pleas for a writ ofhabeas corpus.Sir John Vaughan, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, initially held that the writ should not be granted, saying that it wasKing's Bench that should issue writs ofhabeas corpus in ordinary criminal cases and that Common Pleas could issue the writ only on a claim of privilege of the court (e.g., if the petitioner were an attorney of Common Pleas); the other justices issued the writ, however.[4] Vaughan ruled in November 1670 that a jury could not be punished simply on account of the verdict it returned, but that individual jurors could still be punished if it could be demonstrated that they had acted improperly.[5]