R v Baybasin & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

The applications for leave to appeal concern large scale conspiracies to import cocaine and other class A drugs. The Crown Court in Liverpool divided the defendants' involvement into six indictments. Several applicants pleaded guilty prior to trial, while three appellants—referred to as Baybasin, McMullen, and Molloy—were tried before His Honour Judge Aubrey QC and a jury beginning 18 May 2011, resulting in convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine, and in Baybasin's case, also for concealing criminal property.

The Crown alleged a well-planned conspiracy involving groups in London, Liverpool, and overseas. The prosecution's evidence included surveillance and recorded conversations. The trial and subsequent appeals focus on procedural issues regarding jury empanelment and alleged jury misconduct, as well as applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on various defendants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the practice of balloting jurors by number in long trials at the Crown Court in Liverpool was lawful and whether it affected the fairness of the trial.
2. Whether allegations of jurors conducting internet research and other misconduct during the trial warranted an appeal against conviction.
3. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants were excessive or wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The practice of balloting jurors by number was unlawful, especially as the prosecution withdrew its application for such balloting, and the judge failed to give proper directions regarding jury transportation and separation.
• Fresh evidence suggested jurors had accessed internet material about the defendants’ families involved in drug dealing, which had been excluded from evidence at trial.
• Some appellants contended their sentences were manifestly excessive given their roles, prior convictions, and the fact that no drugs were actually imported.
• One appellant argued the single judge who refused leave to appeal should have recused himself due to a perceived risk of bias.
• Another appellant challenged the financial reporting order imposed as disproportionate and unnecessary.

Court's Response to Arguments

• Leave to appeal against conviction was granted only on the first ground concerning balloting by number; the second ground regarding jury internet research was rejected after thorough investigation.
• The court found the practice of balloting by number was standard at Liverpool for long cases and did not affect trial fairness.
• The allegations of jury misconduct, including internet research and reading books on drug dealing during trial, were found to be unsubstantiated or unreliable.
• The court upheld the sentences as appropriate and not manifestly excessive, emphasizing the seriousness and scale of the conspiracy.
• The submission of potential bias was rejected as wholly without foundation.
• The financial reporting order was upheld as proportionate and justified based on risk assessment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the legality and fairness of the Liverpool practice of balloting jurors by number in long trials. Relying on R v Comerford, it found no impairment to defendants' rights or trial fairness, especially as the jury was informed this was standard practice. The court noted that the prosecution had initially applied for balloting by number but withdrew the application; nonetheless, the judge proceeded with the practice as part of local custom. The court acknowledged that local practices in the Crown Court should be uniform unless objectively justified; no such justification was offered for Liverpool's practice. The court recommended that the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee consider the issue to ensure consistency across courts.

Regarding allegations of jury misconduct, including internet research and reading books related to drug dealing during trial, the court conducted a thorough investigation with evidence from jurors and witnesses. It found the allegations unsubstantiated or based on unreliable witnesses. The court emphasized the importance of finality in verdicts and cautioned against post-verdict inquiries absent strong evidence, noting jurors' serious approach to their duties.

On sentencing appeals, the court endorsed the trial judge's detailed and careful assessment of each defendant's role and culpability. It rejected arguments that sentences were excessive, considering the scale and seriousness of the conspiracy and relevant sentencing precedents. The court dismissed claims of bias and upheld ancillary orders such as financial reporting orders as proportionate and justified.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL only on the ground concerning the legality of balloting jurors by number but ultimately held that the practice did not affect the fairness or safety of the convictions.

The court DISMISSED ALL APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE for the appellants.

The decision affirms that local practices in the Crown Court must be objectively justified and consistent with overarching procedural rules. It highlights the need for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to review such practices for uniformity. The ruling reinforces the principle that post-verdict allegations of jury misconduct require compelling evidence before inquiry is warranted, preserving the finality of verdicts and protecting jurors from undue scrutiny. The court's thorough endorsement of sentencing decisions underscores the deference given to trial judges in assessing complex criminal conduct.