Lewis & Ors v R

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants were convicted on count 2 of conspiracy to steal following a lengthy trial before His Honour Judge Walsh and a jury at the Crown Court at Wolverhampton on 16 December 2011. The verdicts were majority verdicts of 10-2. A co-defendant was acquitted, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on count 1, which alleged a similar offence involving other defendants. The prosecution concerned the wholesale theft of thousands of containers used in the brewing industry, including kegs made of stainless steel and aluminium, resulting in significant losses to the industry.

Major brewers established an organisation to recover missing kegs and investigate theft. On 29 February 2008, a van load of kegs was observed being delivered to the premises of Lewis Baling Services Limited (LBS), owned by Lewis, who, along with others, was charged with conspiracy to steal relating to that load (count 1). Shortly after, police discovered a large number of kegs at M & S Alloys Limited (M & S Alloys), where Fellows and Geeling were directors. Further investigation revealed M & S Alloys had purchased many tons of kegs between 2004 and 2008. Lewis, Knight, Fellows, and Geeling were charged on count 2, a more serious conspiracy involving significant quantities of kegs received and baled for disposal.

Civil proceedings for conversion and conspiracy to steal were commenced simultaneously, seeking £95 million in damages, but were settled in March 2011 with the brewers withdrawing conspiracy allegations. The criminal trial began in late summer 2011. The appellants' defence was that they had traded legitimately in kegs for resale to scrap and had no reason to suspect the kegs were stolen. The key issues were whether the kegs had been abandoned or sold by the brewers and whether the appellants acted dishonestly.

During the trial, a juror, Pardon, approached Lewis outside court and alleged jury misconduct, including bias, use of extraneous material, and bullying of a juror to secure convictions. These allegations led to a police investigation and committal proceedings against Pardon for contempt of court, which he accepted, resulting in a four-month prison sentence. The Court of Appeal ordered the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to investigate the jury's use of extraneous material, particularly internet-sourced information.

The CCRC conducted a sensitive investigation, including a jury questionnaire, which largely found no evidence that extraneous material influenced the verdicts. Some jurors acknowledged limited discussions about internet use but denied accessing case-related information. The female juror who was alleged to have been bullied was found to have been emotional due to trial stress, not bullying. Pardon refused to cooperate with the CCRC. The court found no reason to doubt the safety of the convictions despite Pardon's allegations.

Renewed applications for leave to appeal on other grounds were also considered and refused. These included arguments regarding the acquittal of other defendants, the settlement of civil proceedings, refusal to admit certain evidence, and non-disclosure of a forensic accountancy report. The court upheld the trial judge's rulings on these matters and dismissed the appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions were unsafe due to alleged jury misconduct, including the use of extraneous material and improper influence during deliberations.
2. Whether evidence relating to the acquittal of other defendants (the Westwoods) should have been admitted to challenge the prosecution's case.
3. Whether the settlement of related civil proceedings was relevant and admissible in the criminal trial.
4. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to admit evidence from a VAT tax specialist concerning the financial dealings of one of the companies involved.
5. Whether the prosecution was obliged to disclose a forensic accountancy report prepared during civil proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The jury was improperly influenced by extraneous material, including internet research, which undermined the safety of the convictions.
• The acquittal of other defendants (the Westwoods) was relevant evidence that should have been presented to the jury.
• The settlement of civil proceedings, including withdrawal of conspiracy allegations, was relevant to the criminal charges and should have been disclosed to the jury.
• The defence should have been allowed to call the VAT tax specialist to support the proposition that suspect company activities were consistent with missing trader fraud rather than conspiracy.
• The prosecution should have disclosed a forensic accountancy report from civil proceedings as it might have assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution case.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The allegations of jury misconduct were unsupported and arose from a dissenting juror's post-verdict protest, not from any contemporaneous reporting or evidence.
• The acquittal of the Westwoods was irrelevant as the prosecution no longer alleged their involvement in the conspiracy.
• The settlement of civil proceedings was not relevant or admissible in the criminal trial and could not assist the jury in determining criminal liability.
• The VAT tax specialist's evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible because it did not support the defence case as presented and was obtained late and for a limited purpose.
• The forensic accountancy report was privileged, not in the prosecution's possession, and not relevant to the criminal issues.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] 1 AC 1118	Principles regarding the prohibition on disclosure of jury deliberations and the handling of evidence relating to jury misconduct.	The court emphasized that nothing decided in the appeal undermines the principles identified by the House of Lords in this case, highlighting the need for great circumspection in dealing with jury deliberation disclosures.
R v Adams [2007] 1 Cr App R 34	Post-verdict silence on jury irregularity generally leads to the assumption that no irregularity occurred.	The court applied this principle to reject the juror's post-verdict complaints as insufficient to undermine the convictions, given the clear directions to report irregularities during trial.
R v Thompson and Others [2010] 2 Cr App R 27	The risk that a dissenting juror may perceive ordinary events as suspicious after an adverse verdict.	The court acknowledged this risk and found that the juror's allegations likely reflected dissatisfaction with the verdict rather than actual misconduct.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the allegations of jury misconduct raised by the juror Pardon, who had approached a defendant post-verdict claiming bias, bullying, and use of extraneous material. The court noted that Pardon was a dissenting juror dissatisfied with the majority verdict and had not reported any concerns during the trial or jury deliberations, despite clear judicial instructions to do so. The subsequent police investigation and CCRC inquiry found no material evidence that extraneous information, including internet research, influenced the jury's verdicts. Testimonies from other jurors contradicted Pardon's assertions, and the emotional state of the female juror was attributed to the stress of the trial rather than bullying.

The court underscored the importance of upholding the confidentiality and integrity of jury deliberations, referencing established legal principles that generally preclude inquiry into jury discussions unless exceptional circumstances arise. The court found that the post-verdict complaints by Pardon were unsubstantiated and likely motivated by disagreement with the verdict rather than actual irregularities.

Regarding other grounds of appeal, the court agreed with the trial judge's rulings. The acquittal of certain defendants was irrelevant as they were no longer alleged to be part of the conspiracy. The settlement of civil claims was not admissible in the criminal trial as it did not assist the jury in determining criminal guilt. The refusal to admit evidence from the VAT tax specialist was justified because the evidence was irrelevant and not properly part of the defence case. The forensic accountancy report was privileged and not in the prosecution's possession, and thus non-disclosure did not undermine the fairness of the trial.

Overall, the court found no basis to doubt the safety of the convictions or to grant leave to appeal on the renewed grounds.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals against conviction and refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal on other grounds.

The direct effect of this decision is to affirm the safety and validity of the appellants' convictions for conspiracy to steal. The court's analysis confirms that post-verdict allegations of jury misconduct unsupported by contemporaneous evidence or other juror corroboration will not suffice to undermine a conviction. No new legal precedent was established; the decision reinforces existing principles regarding jury confidentiality, the inadmissibility of certain civil proceedings evidence in criminal trials, and the standards for admitting defence evidence.