Tasleem & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicants were convicted following a lengthy Crown Court trial of murder, possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, and perverting the course of justice. The convictions arose from a fatal shooting incident involving a drive-by shooting linked to a longstanding feud between two family groups, here referred to as the Claughton group and the Hussain group. The deceased was shot in the early hours of 31st January 2021 by occupants of a car with false registration plates. Nine men stood trial, including the applicants alleged to be the principal organiser and driver of the vehicle involved. Various co-accused faced differing charges and verdicts.

Months after conviction and sentencing, a new issue emerged regarding the alleged conduct of a juror, prompting applications for extensions of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. These applications were referred to the full court by the Registrar. The court was tasked with deciding whether to direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to investigate the alleged juror misconduct and to rule on the applications.

The allegations arose from a report by a police officer who was informed by family members of the deceased that a juror had indicated prior to the conclusion of the trial that only the shooter and driver would be found guilty, implying bias and premature verdict formation by the jury. The applicants contend this raises an appearance of jury bias rendering convictions unsafe, while the respondent disputes the reliability of the report and contends the convictions remain safe.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate the alleged juror misconduct pursuant to section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
2. Whether the applications for extensions of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction should be granted in light of the alleged jury irregularity.
3. Whether the alleged juror conduct, if true, renders the applicants' convictions unsafe and justifies an appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The information about the juror's conduct is reliable, coming from independent police investigations and family members of the deceased.
• The alleged premature formation of verdicts by the jury before the conclusion of trial proceedings creates at least an appearance of bias.
• The limited available information requires clarification, justifying a CCRC investigation.
• Reference to R v Thompson and Others supports inquiry where there is a serious ground to believe the jury repudiated their oath.
• The applications for extension of time were made promptly upon discovery of the new information.

Respondent's Arguments

• Although not opposing the extension of time, the respondent submits the convictions are safe.
• The report to police is unreliable and possibly influenced by family dissatisfaction with verdicts.
• No prior mention was made of juror misconduct during or immediately after the trial.
• The alleged juror comment is vague and does not indicate that all jurors had decided early.
• The court should be cautious and reject the suggestion that the verdicts were affected by jury impropriety.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reaffirming the principle that jury deliberations must remain confidential and that inquiry into them is only permitted in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances, such as complete repudiation of the jury oath or introduction of extraneous material. The court considered the reliability of the report of juror misconduct, noting the absence of any prior mention of the alleged conduct during or after the trial despite multiple opportunities for disclosure.

The court reasoned that the statement attributed to the juror could be interpreted as an inappropriate expression of a single juror's provisional view rather than representing the collective final decision of the jury. It found no evidence suggesting that the entire jury had reached their verdict weeks before formal deliberations. The collective responsibility of jurors to adhere to their oath and judicial directions, as well as the mixed and partial verdicts returned, undermined the suggestion of premature and biased verdict formation.

Given these considerations, the court concluded there was no sufficient basis to direct a CCRC investigation. Without such investigation, the grounds of appeal based on alleged jury irregularity were not arguable. The court also accepted the explanation for the late application but found no purpose in granting an extension of time given the lack of merit in the appeal grounds.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and accordingly the applications for leave to appeal fell away.

The immediate consequence is that the applicants' convictions and sentences stand as decided at trial. The court did not find grounds to set aside or question the jury's verdicts and declined to direct further investigation by the CCRC. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied established principles regarding jury confidentiality and the stringent threshold for permitting inquiry into jury deliberations.