Haji, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted of fraud for allegedly obtaining accommodation and payments by falsely claiming to have been living at Grenfell Towers at the time of the fire there. The defence argued that any incorrect information was due to misunderstanding caused by language difficulties or the Applicant's mental health and alcohol abuse issues. The trial took place before His Honour Judge Curtis-Raleigh and a jury at the Crown Court at Isleworth in October 2023. After evidence and closing speeches, the jury was instructed to reach a unanimous verdict, with no majority verdicts permitted unless further directions were given. The jury began deliberations on 27 October, were sent home for the weekend, and resumed on 30 October. The foreman announced a unanimous guilty verdict in open court, after which the jury was discharged. The following day, two jurors reported that the verdict was not unanimous but a majority, which was not raised in court at the time. The judge, considering himself functus officio, referred the matter to the Registrar, and the case was listed for the full court to consider the applications for extension of time and leave to appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the verdict announced by the foreman as unanimous was in fact unanimous.
2. Whether a majority verdict can be returned without the jury first receiving a majority direction.
3. Whether the verdict announced was effectively a "non-verdict" returned in error and thus unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The foreman incorrectly announced a unanimous guilty verdict when there was no unanimity.
• Even if a majority verdict existed, no majority direction was given, rendering such a verdict invalid.
• The verdict was effectively a "non-verdict" due to the foreman's error and is therefore unsafe.
• Requested the court to exercise its power under section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

Respondent's Arguments

• No juror expressed dissent at the time the verdict was given or shortly thereafter.
• It is inappropriate to investigate allegations raised nearly 24 hours after the verdict was pronounced.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Nanan v The State (1986) 83 Cr App R 292	Presumption that silence after verdict indicates assent; dissent must be expressed immediately.	The court applied the presumption that jurors who do not dissent immediately are deemed to have assented to the verdict.
R v Austin [2002] EWCA Crim 1796	Dissent must be expressed promptly to allow reconsideration before verdict is recorded.	Emphasized the importance of timely dissent to preserve the integrity of the verdict.
R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118	Confidentiality of jury deliberations with narrow exceptions; assent presumed if no objection when verdict is announced.	Confirmed principle that post-verdict dissent is generally inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances exist.
R v Charnley [2007] EWCA Crim 1354	Exception to general rule where juror expressed doubts immediately after leaving court but before dispersal.	Distinguished present case by noting that concerns were raised too late here to justify inquiry.
R v Lewis [2013] EWCA Crim 776	Post-verdict complaints are generally disregarded if not raised promptly in court.	Supported the view that silence after verdict implies acceptance.
R v Baybasin [2013] EWCA Crim 2357	Similar principles regarding jury verdicts and timing of dissent.	Referenced as part of the body of case law supporting the court's approach.
R v Ul Hamid and Khan [2016] EWCA Crim 483	Second thoughts after verdict delivery are irrelevant; what matters is unanimity at time of verdict.	Reinforced that ostensibly regular verdicts are to be respected and not lightly interfered with.
RN v The Queen [2020] EWCA Crim 937	This precedent was cited but specific rule or application was not detailed in the opinion.	This precedent was considered in the court’s overall analysis.
R v Essa, Nielson and Amin [2023] EWCA 608	This precedent was cited but specific rule or application was not detailed in the opinion.	This precedent was considered in the court’s overall analysis.
Yussuf v Governor of HMP Belmarsh [2024] EWHC 692 (Admin)	The court will not investigate jury deliberations if mistake is indicated significantly after verdict delivery.	Applied to affirm that delayed complaints do not justify inquiry into jury verdict.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused primarily on the first and third grounds of appeal, assuming for argument’s sake the correctness of the second ground. It reiterated the long-standing common law principle that jury deliberations must remain confidential and that inquiries into how a verdict was reached are generally prohibited, except in narrow circumstances such as complete repudiation of the jury oath or introduction of extraneous material.

The court emphasized that any dissent must be expressed immediately upon the verdict's announcement to allow reconsideration before the verdict is recorded. Silence at that time creates a presumption of assent. The court noted that the jury had been given clear and conventional directions to aim for unanimity and to raise concerns promptly. The foreman’s announcement of a unanimous verdict was made in open court, with no visible or audible dissent from any juror, and the judge took care to confirm unanimity with the foreman.

The court found that the subsequent complaints by two jurors, made nearly 24 hours later and after the jury had dispersed, came too late to cast doubt on the verdict’s safety. Jurors had multiple opportunities to raise concerns before dispersal, including private communication with court staff or fellow jurors, but did not do so. The court distinguished the present facts from cases where immediate post-verdict doubts were raised and investigated. It also noted that jurors may change their views during deliberations and that the note sent by the jury prompting a majority direction did not in itself undermine the unanimous verdict ultimately returned.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the verdict as announced in open court must be accepted as correct and safe, and that no investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission was warranted.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Applicant's applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the conviction stands, and the case may proceed to sentencing. No new precedent was established; the decision reaffirms established principles regarding jury verdict confidentiality, the timing of dissent, and the limited circumstances under which post-verdict inquiries may be permitted.