Tams, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 August 2023, the Plaintiff and a co-accused, who was in a relationship with the Plaintiff and another woman, met the complainant at his residence where they consumed drugs. They then proceeded to the co-accused's residence to continue drug use. The complainant alleged that the Plaintiff and co-accused assaulted him and robbed him of his bank card after he refused to provide cash for cocaine. The complainant escaped and was treated overnight in hospital for bruising and cuts. The Plaintiff was arrested the same day in possession of the complainant's bank card but denied involvement in the assault or robbery, offering an alternative explanation regarding the card's possession. The co-accused also denied responsibility but gave evidence inconsistent with the Plaintiff's. At trial, the prosecution relied on the Plaintiff's previous conviction for unlawful wounding and evidence that the Plaintiff had been remanded in custody during a period relevant to the alleged relationship with the complainant. The jury returned guilty verdicts on 31 January 2024, and sentencing was pending. Subsequently, a prison officer reportedly disclosed to the Plaintiff that he had learned of the guilty verdict from a juror friend, prompting an application to investigate potential jury irregularity.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate an alleged jury irregularity arising from a prison officer's conversation with a juror after the verdict was returned.
2. Whether the fresh evidence concerning the prison officer's conversation with a juror is capable of supporting an arguable ground of appeal or implies jury misconduct.
3. The extent to which post-verdict communications between jurors and third parties can affect the safety of a conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The conversation between the prison officer and his juror friend requires investigation to identify the juror and determine the nature and content of information exchanged.
• The jury was not informed that the Plaintiff had been remanded in custody throughout the trial, potentially distorting their view of the Plaintiff and affecting the verdict.
• The impact of this conversation on the jury’s decision-making process is unknown and could have prejudiced the verdict.

Respondent's Arguments

• Even if the Plaintiff’s account is credible, the conversation occurred after the verdict and does not imply any jury irregularity.
• There is no evidence from any juror indicating irregularity or prejudice.
• The jury was aware that the Plaintiff had spent time in custody, negating any prejudice from the conversation.
• The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the conversation could affect the safety of the convictions.
• Cited authority establishes that jury deliberations and conduct are generally protected from scrutiny except in very limited circumstances, none of which apply here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mirza [2004] UKHL 2	Establishes that jury deliberations are generally "forbidden territory" except in very limited circumstances.	Supported the court's view that the alleged post-verdict conversation does not warrant investigation as it does not amount to jury misconduct.
Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623	Emphasizes collective responsibility of the jury for conduct from the moment they are sworn, including reporting misconduct during the trial.	Reinforced the principle that no report of misconduct was made during the trial and that the alleged post-verdict communication does not amount to misconduct affecting the verdict.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted, for the purpose of the application, that the Plaintiff’s account of the conversation with the prison officer was credible. However, it found no indication that the conversation suggested any jury irregularity. The prison officer had received information about the verdict, which was publicly known, and his enquiry was supportive rather than prejudicial. There was no evidence of bad faith or improper influence on the jury during the trial.

The court noted that the trial judge had properly instructed the jury on their duties and the need to report any concerns to the bailiff, with no such reports made. The jury was directed to decide the case solely on the evidence, specifically whether to believe the complainant. The court saw no reason why the jury’s knowledge that the Plaintiff had been remanded in custody would prejudice them given the evidence presented.

Consequently, the court refused to admit the fresh evidence as it did not provide an arguable ground of appeal or justify directing the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate. The application for permission to appeal was also refused as the inquiry was unnecessary to determine the appeal.

The court also commended the Plaintiff’s counsel for her prompt and diligent handling of the issue, including alerting opposing counsel and the court, and making realistic concessions.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for permission to appeal against conviction and declined to direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate the alleged jury irregularity.

This decision means the convictions stand pending sentence, with no further applications to be made on this matter. The court did not establish any new precedent but reaffirmed established principles limiting inquiry into jury deliberations and conduct absent clear evidence of misconduct affecting the verdict.