Davies & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a trial in the Crown Court at The City before Judge Smith and a jury, the applicants were convicted of conspiracy to launder criminal property involving large sums of cash and sentenced to imprisonment terms. The applicants' initial applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused by a single judge, who provided detailed reasons. The applicants have now renewed their applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and one applicant has renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The defendants stood trial together on two counts of conspiracy to launder criminal property occurring between March 2020 and March 2021. The trial lasted approximately eight weeks and involved evidence including encrypted communications, circumstantial evidence, and multiple defendants giving evidence or choosing not to testify.

The prosecution case established that the defendants conspired to use a haulage company, Genesis 24 Limited ("Genesis"), to transport large quantities of criminal cash. One defendant, Hughes, had previous convictions and had transferred ownership of Genesis to a relative but continued to operate it. Other defendants were employees or associates involved in the conspiracy.

The trial included issues concerning a prosecution counsel's social media post that potentially risked prejudicing the jury and the jury's use of a WhatsApp group during the trial. The judge addressed these issues and declined to discharge the jury or conduct extensive further inquiries.

Sentencing was conducted with reference to the Sentencing Council's guidelines, assessing the scale of laundering, roles of defendants, aggravating factors, and mitigating circumstances such as Covid-19 impacts. Sentences ranged from three and a half years to fourteen years' imprisonment, based on culpability and involvement.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in handling the potential jury prejudice caused by a prosecution counsel's tweet during the trial.
2. Whether the judge conducted an adequate investigation into the jury's use of a WhatsApp group for communication during the trial.
3. Whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive or disproportionate, including considerations of role, culpability, totality, and disparity between co-defendants.
4. Whether the conviction of one applicant is unsafe based on grounds related to jury management and procedural fairness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicant challenging conviction argued the judge should have conducted a more detailed inquiry or discharged the jury after the prosecution counsel's tweet that could have been seen by jurors.
• The applicant contended the judge should have undertaken a more thorough investigation into the jury's WhatsApp communications, including reviewing jurors' mobile phones.
• Regarding sentencing, one applicant argued that the judge mischaracterised his role, resulting in an excessive sentence, and that there was unfair disparity between his sentence and those of co-defendants.
• Another applicant contended that his role as a driver acting under instructions warranted a lesser sentence and challenged the assessment of culpability and harm.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent submitted that the tweet was an unwise but non-prejudicial comment unlikely to have been seen by jurors, and that the judge's handling of the matter was appropriate.
• It was argued that the judge's investigation into the WhatsApp group was sufficient and that there was no evidence of jury irregularity requiring further inquiry.
• The respondent maintained that the sentencing judge was best placed to assess culpability and totality, and that the sentences were appropriate given the evidence and roles of the defendants.
• The respondent cautioned against speculative arguments undermining the presumption that jurors obey instructions not to research or discuss the case improperly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Tamiz and Tamiz [2024] EWCA Crim 200	Guidance on the renewal process for applications for leave to appeal under section 31 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, including the risk of loss of time orders for hopeless grounds.	The court referenced this case to emphasize the importance of proper consideration before renewing applications for leave to appeal and warned against treating renewal as automatic.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the submissions regarding the prosecution counsel's tweet and the jury's WhatsApp communications. It endorsed the trial judge's view that the tweet, while inappropriate, was unlikely to have been seen by jurors or to have caused prejudice, given the jury instructions against researching the case. The court rejected the need for further inquiry or jury discharge on this basis.

Regarding the WhatsApp group, the court agreed that the judge's investigation, which included written assurances from jurors about the absence of trial discussion in the group, was sufficient. The court emphasized the presumption that jurors follow instructions and found no evidence of irregularity warranting further inquiry or disbelief of juror statements.

On sentencing appeals, the court recognized the trial judge's superior position to assess the evidence, roles, and culpability of defendants after a lengthy trial. It found no error in the judge's findings or application of sentencing guidelines, including the assessment of the amount laundered, aggravating factors, and totality. The court rejected arguments of manifest excess or unjust disparity, noting differences in roles, evidence, and mitigating factors such as health conditions.

The court also addressed procedural guidance, emphasizing that grounds of appeal must identify specific errors or unfair prejudice to succeed, and that renewal applications require careful consideration of prior refusals to avoid sanctions.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED ALL RENEWED APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL against conviction and sentence.

This decision upholds the convictions and sentences imposed by the Crown Court and confirms the appropriateness of the trial judge's management of jury issues and sentencing discretion. The court’s refusal signals that procedural irregularities alleged did not undermine the fairness of the trial or the safety of the convictions. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reinforced existing principles concerning jury conduct, the limits of social media commentary by counsel, sentencing assessments, and procedural requirements for appeals and renewals.