- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Karakaya v REGINA
Factual and Procedural Background
An appellant was convicted on 28th November 2003 at a Crown Court before a judge and jury of indecent assault and rape of his 17-year-old daughter for incidents occurring between January and June 2002. The jury was unable to reach verdicts on two further counts of continuing rape covering later periods. On 2nd February, the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The appeal arose from the discovery that extraneous material had been introduced into the jury room after the jury had retired to deliberate. The trial judge had repeatedly directed the jury to decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court. After initial deliberations and directions, the jury returned majority verdicts on two counts and was discharged from considering the remaining counts. Subsequently, documents downloaded from the internet by a juror were found in the jury room, forming the basis of the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the introduction and use of extraneous material by a juror after the jury's retirement constituted a material irregularity affecting the safety of the conviction.
- Whether the convictions could be regarded as safe in light of the breach of established principles prohibiting jurors from considering evidence not admitted in court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The extraneous material was tendentious and inaccurate, containing points that the prosecution would not have made during the trial.
- The material undermined the fairness of the summing up and the judge’s directions, potentially influencing the jury improperly.
- The handwritten notes suggested the juror who downloaded the material had not abdicated responsibility to decide according to evidence, but this was not sufficient to cure the irregularity.
Respondent's Arguments
- The court should consider the extraneous material in light of established case law allowing examination of such material.
- No enquiry was made of the jury members other than the juror responsible, and it was unclear how many jurors saw the material.
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 | Permitted examination of extraneous material introduced by a juror after retirement. | The court relied on this authority to justify examining the downloaded material despite it being extraneous to the evidence. |
| Owen [1952] 36 CAR 16 | No further evidence should be given after summing up; convictions quashed if breached. | Reaffirmed the principle that no evidence may be introduced after summing up; breach here constituted a material irregularity. |
| Wilson [1957] 41 CAR 226 | Reasserted strict prohibition on further evidence after summing up. | Supported the strict application of the rule against post-summing up evidence. |
| Sanderson [1953] 37 CAR 32 | Allowed limited exceptions for taking evidence before jury retirement, particularly for defence witnesses. | Distinguished from the present case where evidence was introduced after jury retirement, thus not applicable. |
| Gearing [1966] 50 CAR 18 | Strict rule that no evidence must be introduced after jury retirement. | Reiterated the principle supporting quashing convictions if breached. |
| Davis [1976] 62 CAR 194 | Questioned whether every breach requires quashing; introduced consideration of safety of conviction. | Applied the proviso test to assess if conviction remained safe despite irregularity. |
| Maggs [1990] 91 CAR 243; Stewart and Sappleton [1989] 89 CAR 273 | Distinguished permissible juror use of minor aids from impermissible introduction of new evidence. | Helped distinguish between harmless and prejudicial extraneous material. |
| Oliver [1996] 2 CAR 514 | Guidance on jury directions when allowed to separate during deliberations. | Supported clear judicial directions prohibiting jurors from seeking or receiving evidence outside court. |
| Stewart and Sappleton | Reinforced rule against jurors receiving evidence not part of trial. | Emphasized importance of jury not being provided with material outside evidence. |
| Fricker [1999] EWCA Crim 1773 | Juror introducing new evidence with specialized knowledge invalidated verdict. | Supported quashing conviction where juror introduced new evidence without parties’ opportunity to address it. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by acknowledging the well-established principle that no further evidence or material should be introduced to the jury after the summing up and retirement. This principle is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial, open justice, and the ability of both parties to address all material considered by the jury. The extraneous material found in the jury room was downloaded from the internet by a juror after retirement, and included tendentious and inaccurate documents critical of the criminal justice system's handling of rape cases, which the prosecution would not have presented. The court emphasized that such material could improperly influence the jury’s evaluation of the evidence and undermine confidence in the fairness of the trial process.
The court reviewed relevant case law confirming the strict prohibition against jurors receiving new evidence post-retirement, noting that breaches constitute a material irregularity potentially requiring quashing of convictions unless the conviction can be regarded as safe. The court distinguished between harmless use of common reference aids and impermissible private research or introduction of new material. The handwritten notes on the downloaded documents were considered but found irrelevant to the outcome.
Applying these principles, the court concluded that the extraneous material contravened fundamental rules and that the convictions were not safe. The court further noted the importance of clear judicial directions to juries about the prohibition on discussing the case with outsiders and conducting private research, especially in light of the internet’s accessibility.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL, QUASHED THE CONVICTIONS, AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL.
The direct effect of this decision is to set aside the appellant’s convictions due to the material irregularity arising from extraneous material introduced by a juror after retirement. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming and applying established principles regarding juror conduct and evidence admissibility. The court also highlighted the need for improved jury directions to prevent similar occurrences, noting ongoing consideration by the Judicial Studies Board to provide such guidance.
Alert