Winter, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted of sexual offences committed many years ago against a girl aged 5 at the time. The victim, referred to as "C," is protected under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which prohibits any publication likely to identify her as the victim. The offences allegedly occurred while C stayed briefly at the home of her aunt ("A"), where the Applicant lived. The prosecution case was that the Applicant indecently assaulted C on two occasions: once while she was bathing and once when she entered A's bed in the early morning. C initially described the second incident as occurring while lying between the Applicant and A but later gave a different account.

C did not complain at the time but disclosed the assaults to her mother ("M") years later. In 1995, C was interviewed by police, and this interview was video recorded. The Applicant was also interviewed in 1995, with the interview audio tape recorded; these tapes were destroyed in 2005. The trial took place in 2024 before His Honour Judge Taylor KC and a jury at the Crown Court at Swindon. C and M testified for the prosecution, while A did not give evidence. The Applicant denied the allegations, asserting that the incidents never occurred and that C's evidence was unreliable.

The Applicant had prior convictions from 2021 for indecent assault and gross indecency committed in 1980, but no bad character evidence was introduced regarding these convictions. The jury knew that C had applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in 2021 for the alleged assaults, but the application was refused as out of time.

The judge gave written and oral directions to the jury emphasizing that the evidence was closed, no further evidence would be presented, and the jury must not speculate or guess in their deliberations. The jury retired and after about one hour sent a note with six questions relating to the absence of A as a witness, disclosure of previous convictions, the compensation claim, family details, the lost video of the Applicant’s interview, and why the case was reopened. The judge responded by reiterating the directions not to speculate and clarifying that the Applicant’s interview was audio recorded but the tapes were destroyed.

The jury resumed and deliberated for over six hours before returning verdicts. The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal on the sole ground that the convictions are unsafe due to possible reliance on extraneous, speculative considerations during jury deliberations.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court should exercise its power under section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) regarding potential jury misconduct or improper research during deliberations.
2. Whether the Applicant’s convictions are unsafe due to the possibility that the jury considered extraneous or speculative information not based on the evidence presented at trial.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contends that the jury’s note and questions raise substantial concerns that one or more jurors may have conducted internet research about the Applicant, potentially discovering his previous convictions.
• It is submitted that such research and speculation would undermine confidence in the fairness of the verdicts.
• The Applicant requests that the court direct the CCRC to investigate by interviewing all jurors and examining any electronic devices used during the trial to determine if improper research occurred.
• Emphasis is placed on the collective effect of the jury’s questions, suggesting knowledge or belief of the Applicant’s prior convictions despite judicial directions to the contrary.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent opposes the application for a CCRC investigation, arguing that the jury’s questions were simply requests for information and do not indicate that any juror engaged in improper research or speculation.
• It is submitted that the wording of the jury’s questions does not show confusion or error, and there is no evidence of jurors conducting unauthorized inquiries.
• The Respondent highlights that jurors were adequately warned about prohibited conduct, including internet research, and had a duty to report any concerns about fellow jurors, which did not occur.
• The Respondent contends that the judge’s directions were appropriate and sufficient, and there is no basis to doubt that the jury followed them.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Frizell and Bowden [2024] EWCA Crim 1108	Presumption that jurors obey directions and that other jurors will report misconduct during trial; inquiries into jury conduct should be exceptional and require strong evidence.	The court relied on this precedent to affirm the presumption that jurors obeyed the judge's directions and to decline ordering a CCRC investigation absent compelling evidence of misconduct.
R v Baybasin [2014] 1 Cr App R 19	Supports the principle that finality of verdicts must be respected unless there is strong and compelling evidence to justify inquiry into jury conduct.	Referenced to reinforce the standard for ordering investigations into jury misconduct and to justify refusal of the Applicant's request for a CCRC investigation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered the nature of the jury’s questions, noting that they were requests for information rather than assertions or opinions. It acknowledged that jurors often have limited experience with Crown Court procedures and may have misconceptions, which explains why they asked about witnesses, previous convictions, and other matters not presented in evidence.

The court emphasized the judge’s clear directions that the evidence was closed, no further evidence would be presented, and speculation was prohibited. It reasoned that the jury’s questions did not demonstrate that any juror had engaged in improper research or disregarded judicial instructions.

Regarding the specific questions, the court found no indication that question 1 (about the absence of the aunt as a witness) or questions 3, 4, and 6 suggested bias or improper conduct. Question 2, which asked about disclosure of previous convictions, was not interpreted as evidence of juror research or preconceived views. Question 5 reflected a misunderstanding about the nature of the Applicant’s interview recording, which was clarified by the judge.

The court underscored the presumption that jurors obey judicial directions and that jurors would report any misconduct during the trial. It found no evidence to rebut this presumption or justify a CCRC investigation. The court thus concluded that the Applicant’s convictions were not rendered unsafe by the jury’s questions or conduct.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The court held that there was no arguable basis to cast doubt on the safety of the convictions and no evidence to justify the exceptional step of ordering a CCRC investigation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against conviction was also REFUSED.

The decision directly affects the Applicant by upholding the convictions and dismissing the appeal. No broader legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming established principles regarding jury conduct and the threshold for ordering investigations into potential jury misconduct.