R v Davis & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

During investigations by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), a suggestion arose that a juror may have independently visited one or more crime scenes during the trial. Directed by the Court of Appeal, the CCRC sent inquiries to the jurors to clarify this matter. Of the eleven jurors approached, seven responded. Six denied any visits, while one juror (Juror No. 2) indicated awareness that another juror (the foreman, Juror No. 3) had visited locations mentioned in the evidence and that the jury had discussed the foreman’s journey to these sites.

Juror No. 3 confirmed that he had visited certain locations relevant to the case alone during the trial, including the street where two individuals lived and a road near the site of a victim’s death, but denied that any other juror had done so. The court refused an application to question the jurors further, citing Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibits inquiries that might reveal jury deliberations.

The court noted discrepancies between the jurors’ recollections and highlighted the importance of preserving jury integrity and the sanctity of their deliberations. The court reviewed relevant case law regarding jurors’ independent investigations and considered the potential impact on the safety of the convictions.

The opinion also addresses additional grounds of appeal raised on behalf of three appellants concerning evidential matters, including witness credibility, alleged police evidence alterations, and the strength of the prosecution case. After analysis, the court concluded that the convictions were unsafe due to identified irregularities and quashed the convictions without ordering retrials.

Finally, the court considered applications for defendant’s costs orders relating to legal work performed prior to legal aid being granted and indicated its intention to make such orders.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a juror’s independent visit to crime scenes during trial constitutes a material irregularity affecting the safety of the convictions.
2. Whether the discrepancies in juror accounts and the potential influence of unauthorized visits on jury deliberations render the convictions unsafe.
3. The admissibility and impact of various evidential matters raised on appeal, including alleged alterations to witness notes and the relevance of fresh evidence.
4. The appropriateness of awarding defendant’s costs for legal work performed prior to formal legal aid.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the foreman juror’s independent visits to crime scenes were irregular and could have influenced the jury’s verdict, thereby rendering the convictions unsafe.
• Concerns were raised about police conduct, including alterations to witness notes (crossing out the word "white") suggesting potential evidence tampering.
• Fresh evidence, such as the discovery of a union key capable of starting a vehicle and a police log describing suspects as white, was submitted to challenge the prosecution’s case.
• It was contended that certain witness credibility issues, including a witness’s false claim of illness, undermined the safety of the convictions.
• Applications were made for defendant’s costs orders to cover legal work undertaken before legal aid was granted.

Respondent's Arguments

• The prosecution emphasized the strength of the case against the appellants, particularly the overwhelming evidence against one appellant linking him to multiple incidents.
• It was argued that the alleged conspiracy theory lacked evidential support and was implausible given the relationships and circumstances of witnesses.
• The prosecution rejected the suggestion that the police had doctored evidence and maintained that any alterations to notes were obvious and known to the defense.
• The admission of evidence such as the revolver was justified as relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
• Regarding the costs applications, it was acknowledged that experienced counsel would not seek to introduce character evidence prejudicial to the appellants and that legal aid arrangements were appropriate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by examining the evidence that a juror (the foreman) had independently visited crime scenes during the trial. It noted conflicting accounts between jurors regarding discussions of these visits, raising concerns about the integrity of jury deliberations. The court referenced statutory protections under Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which restrict inquiries into jury deliberations, and declined to pursue further questioning of jurors to avoid breaching these protections.

Applying established case law, the court affirmed that jurors must not conduct independent investigations or divide tasks among themselves, as such actions risk undermining the fairness of the trial. The foreman’s visit was found to be a material irregularity, particularly given the central factual issue regarding timing and location in the case.

The court considered whether the irregularity could be "cured" by a controlled view for the entire jury or by discharging the individual juror, but noted that neither had occurred. This raised uncertainty about the basis of the jury’s verdict and compromised the safety of the convictions.

Turning to the additional grounds of appeal, the court analyzed evidential matters including alleged police alterations to witness notes, witness credibility issues, and new evidence regarding vehicle keys and police logs. It found these points insufficient to undermine the prosecution’s case on their own but acknowledged that combined with the juror irregularity, they contributed to doubts about the convictions’ safety.

Ultimately, the court concluded that, given the passage of time and the seriousness of the irregularities, a retrial was not appropriate. The convictions were quashed on the basis that they could not be regarded as safe.

Regarding costs, the court heard applications for defendant’s costs orders to cover legal work done prior to legal aid being granted. After discussion, the court indicated its intention to make such orders on a taxed basis, consistent with precedent.

Holding and Implications

The court quashed the convictions of all three appellants and allowed their appeals.

The direct effect of this decision is the setting aside of the convictions without ordering retrials, reflecting the court’s assessment that the convictions were unsafe due to material irregularities, particularly the juror’s unauthorized visit to crime scenes. The judgment does not establish a finding of innocence but recognizes the impossibility of ensuring a fair verdict under the circumstances.

Additionally, the court granted applications for defendant’s costs orders to remunerate legal work undertaken prior to formal legal aid, reflecting procedural fairness for appellants’ legal representatives. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles safeguarding jury deliberations and trial fairness.