Robust Jury Management and Judicial Discretion in Addressing Juror Bias: Cepe, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 196)

Introduction

The case of Cepe, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 196) presents a significant development in the approaches taken by the courts in managing jury irregularities, particularly when challenges related to alleged bias and disruptive behaviour emerge during deliberations. In this case, the applicant was charged with a range of serious offences including controlling or coercive behaviour, false imprisonment, assault (including sexual offences), and property damage. With the bulk of the convictions secured by the jury after weighing evidence – especially the testimony of the complainant "V" – the contested issues focalized on the discharge of certain jurors following a dynamic environment during the jury’s deliberations. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the judicial strategies adopted, and the substantial legal principles established, with particular reference to the necessity of judicial discretion in overseeing jury conduct.

Summary of the Judgment

The judgment issued by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addresses an application for leave to appeal concerning the judge’s decisions associated with the discharge of jurors during the trial. The applicant had been convicted on several counts after a multifaceted trial that included allegations of coercive and violent behaviour against a victim “V” and conflicting testimony from a witness. The core of the dispute arose during jury deliberations when multiple notes were sent by individual jurors.

Key findings include:

The trial judge, observing various irregularities and potential bias—including disruptive actions and contentious comments by juror J10—discharged J10 using the judicial discretion provided under Criminal Practice Direction 8.7.
The remaining 11 jurors were individually confirmed as capable of giving a fair verdict after being re-directed by the judge, thus rebutting the defense's call for the discharge of the entire jury.
Arguments concerning unconscious bias on the part of juror J5 were scrutinized, but the judge’s approach in questioning and seeking reassurance from each juror satisfied the fairness requirement.
The Court of Appeal, while granting leave to appeal on the issue relating to J5, ultimately dismissed the overall appeal against conviction, endorsing the trial judge’s handling of the jury management.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment explicitly cites several leading precedents that inform the approach to jury management and the discharge of biased or disruptive jurors:

Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67: This case serves as a foundational reference point in evaluating the discretionary powers of judges in investigating allegations of juror bias or misconduct during a trial.
R v Gynane [2020] EWCA Crim 1348: The decision in Gynane offers insight into the parameters for assessing juror reliability and the impact of extraneous factors on juror impartiality.
R v Skeete [2022] EWCA Crim 1511: This case further clarified the thresholds for removing jurors based on demonstrable bias, providing a comparative measure for the trial judge’s actions in the present case.

These precedents influenced the court’s decision by affirming that a judge’s systematic and meticulously documented inquiry into juror behaviour is not only permissible but necessary. The adherence to the established procedural directions, notably those detailed in Criminal Practice Direction 8.7, provides a sturdy legal framework for such novel scenarios in jury management.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning in this judgment unfolds from a balance between the necessity to maintain an impartial and effective jury deliberation process and the rights of the defendant to a fair trial. The judge’s decision-making was grounded on several key factors:

Observation of Juror Conduct: The trial judge noted a sequence of behaviours—such as smirking, mobile phone usage, and a demonstrated reluctance to engage—that raised concerns about juror J10’s ability to fairly discharge his duties. The accumulation of these behaviours and the content of the notes provided by other jurors substantiated a decision that J10’s continued participation posed a risk of bias.
Compliance with Procedural Directives: By referring to Part 8.7 of the Criminal Practice Direction 2023 and following the stepped procedures in Criminal Practice Direction 8.7.5, the judge ensured that the actions taken were both justified and consistent with established legal protocols. The individualized inquiries of remaining jurors further reinforced the integrity of the process.
Risk Assessment: The judge critically appraised whether a “fair minded and informed observer” would consider the circumstances as presenting a real possibility of bias. In the instance of J10, the convergence of his statements, his disengagement during deliberations, and prior behaviour in court met the required threshold for discharge.
Balancing Jury Dynamics: While defense submissions argued that the removal of J10 and concerns around juror J5 may have inhibited some jurors from fully engaging, the judge’s reassurances and subsequent unanimous confirmations of the jurors’ commitment to their oath indicated that the jury as a whole retained its capacity to deliberate fairly and without external pressure.

Impact

This judgment will likely have a profound impact on future cases where jury misconduct or bias is alleged. Its significance lies in:

Enhanced Judicial Discretion: The case reinforces that when confronted with evidence of disruptive or potentially biased conduct during jury deliberations, judges are empowered (and indeed required) to take decisive remedial steps, including the discharge of individual jurors.
Refined Application of Criminal Practice Directions: The detailed reference to and application of procedural directions demonstrates how these guidelines can be used to maintain the integrity of the jury decision-making process even under complex or charged circumstances.
Clarification on Unconscious Bias: By distinguishing between overt bias and more subtle, unconscious predispositions—as in the analysis of J5’s comments—the judgment provides clarity on how such issues should be evaluated. This will guide future appellate reviews and trial management in ensuring that juror inquiries are both rigorous and fair.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terms in the judgment warrant clarification:

Discharge of a Juror: This refers to the removal of a juror from the jury panel because their participation may likely impair the fairness or impartiality of the trial. The trial judge exercised this power after considering multiple indicators of potential bias.
Criminal Practice Direction 8.7: This is a set of internal procedural guidelines that help judges manage irregularities or issues within a jury’s deliberation process. The guidelines specify when and how a juror can be discharged.
Unconscious Bias: Unlike overt or explicit prejudice, unconscious bias refers to hidden biases that influence decision-making without the individual being aware of them. In this case, defense counsel argued that such a bias might impair a juror’s ability to consider evidence objectively.
Fair Trial and Juror Oath: The assurance that all jurors remain faithful to their sworn duty to impartially evaluate evidence is central to a fair trial. The judge’s process of individually confirming each juror’s ability to adhere to this oath is an essential safeguard.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judgment in Cepe, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 196) establishes important precedents for addressing challenges related to juror bias and misconduct during deliberations. It affirms that:

Judges have wide-ranging discretion under established practice directions to manage and, if necessary, discharge jurors who display behaviour that could imperil a fair trial.
The careful application of procedural guidelines, including individualized confirmation of jurors’ capacities to deliver true verdicts, is essential in preserving trial integrity.
While dissenting views regarding the impact of juror removal on overall jury dynamics can arise, robust inquiry and appropriate directions mitigate the risk of bias affecting the outcome.

As courts face increasingly complex dynamics in jury deliberations, this decision serves as a vital touchstone, both reinforcing existing legal principles and shaping future directions in jury management and judicial oversight.

The case underscores that the maintenance of a fair trial does not solely hinge on evidentiary scrutiny in the courtroom, but also on the meticulous management of jury conduct—affirming that judicial discretion, when executed with care and regard for procedural propriety, holds a decisive place in the administration of justice.