Rotaru, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant was convicted on 11 May 2021 at the Crown Court at Isleworth of ten counts of rape committed against a complainant ("E") on 13 August 2017, alongside three co-defendants. The complainant was tricked into a car, taken to a house, and subjected to multiple rapes. She sustained serious physical injuries and psychological harm. The applicant initially denied participation but was linked by forensic evidence. After trial, the jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction, an extension of time to renew the appeal, and permission to vary his grounds of appeal to rely on a fresh ground. The original grounds related to alleged errors by the trial judge concerning counsel withdrawal were dismissed and are not renewed. The fresh ground concerns the trial judge’s handling of jury notes expressing discomfort about seeing the defendants outside the courtroom during the trial.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in failing adequately to investigate the jury notes expressing concerns about seeing the defendants outside the courtroom and whether this rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe.
2. Whether an extension of time of 445 days to renew the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
3. Whether leave should be granted to vary the notice of appeal to rely on a replacement ground rather than the original refused grounds.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The trial judge failed to adequately investigate the jury notes from 22 April 2021 expressing discomfort at seeing the defendants outside the courtroom.
• The judge did not inquire whether the author or other jurors had prejudged the case or had prejudices that would prevent a fair trial.
• The judge did not clarify the meaning of terms such as "group" or "gang" used in the notes.
• The judge failed to assess whether the jury felt able to continue fairly with the trial in those circumstances.
• These alleged failures could have impacted the verdicts, rendering the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe.

Respondent's Arguments

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the jury notes expressing discomfort at seeing the defendants outside the courtroom. The trial judge read the notes into the record and consulted with counsel. No party suggested further inquiry was necessary, as the jurors had properly raised their concerns in accordance with the judge’s directions. The judge reassured the jury, acknowledged their feelings, and implemented arrangements to prevent further contact, including staggered court times and prohibiting defendants from leaving the building for breaks. The judge’s measured, problem-solving approach was appropriate and effective in addressing the issue. The court found no reasonable basis to argue that the judge’s handling of the notes rendered the convictions unsafe. Regarding the extension of time, the court accepted that the applicant’s solicitors had been reasonably diligent and had legitimate reasons for delay, including obtaining transcripts and language barriers. However, the cumulative delay of 445 days was excessive and added to the trauma for the complainant. The proposed fresh ground of appeal was not arguable, and thus no good reason existed to grant the extension or renew the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court refused all applications: leave to appeal against conviction, extension of time to renew the appeal, and leave to vary the notice of appeal to rely on fresh grounds. The direct effect is that the applicant’s convictions remain upheld. No new precedent was established by this decision.