Cashman v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted on 30th March 2023 at the Crown Court in Manchester, following a trial before Mrs Justice Yip and a jury, of murder, attempted murder, wounding with intent, and two counts of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. The trial was transferred from Liverpool to Manchester to avoid local influence. The Applicant was sentenced on 3rd April 2023 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 42 years for the murder and attempted murder counts, alongside concurrent sentences for the other offences. The case attracted significant national media attention, and extensive measures were taken to secure the integrity of the trial and protect the jury from outside influence, including sequestering jurors and providing them with detailed legal responsibilities and instructions on their conduct.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal his convictions after refusal by the Single Judge and also requested an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) under section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. These applications were refused on 20 November 2024, and this judgment explains the reasons for that refusal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should grant leave to appeal the Applicant’s convictions based on allegations of jury irregularities.
2. Whether the Court should direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate allegations that jurors were clandestinely supplied with panic alarms and that prejudicial material was introduced to the jury during deliberations.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant’s solicitor received information from an unidentified individual ("Male 4") alleging that a juror ("Male 1") had discussed the case outside court and that the jury had been supplied with panic alarms without court sanction.
• It was further alleged that the jury had been shown a bundle of prejudicial material, including transcripts related to the co-defendant, which was not part of the evidence in the trial.
• The Applicant sought an investigation by the CCRC into these alleged irregularities and leave to appeal based on the outcome of such an investigation.
• The Applicant’s counsel argued that the investigation, particularly regarding the panic alarms, would be straightforward and proportionate.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown accepted that the introduction of prejudicial material to the jury would constitute an irregularity.
• The Crown suggested the panic alarms allegation might constitute an irregularity depending on the Court’s view.
• The Crown submitted that the allegations lacked credibility and did not warrant an investigation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged that if established, the alleged introduction of prejudicial material and the clandestine issue of panic alarms to the jury would amount to jury irregularities. However, the material presented was inadmissible hearsay, consisting of multiple layers of unverified statements from unidentified individuals, and lacked any credible evidential basis under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Court found the scenario inherently improbable: the alleged secret conversations involving a juror breaching strict jury conduct rules, the supply and concealment of personal panic alarms to all jurors without detection by court staff, and the illicit access of police officers to the jury retiring room to show prejudicial material without any record or detection were all considered fanciful and lacking in credibility.

The Court further noted that no progress had been made in identifying the alleged informants despite efforts, which compounded the unreliability of the allegations. The Court emphasized the rigorous instructions given to jurors about their duties and the improbability that all jurors would suppress such breaches.

Regarding the request for a CCRC investigation, the Court held that such investigations must be based on credible material likely to resolve the matter. The complexity, intrusiveness, and resource demands of the proposed investigations were significant, and the statutory test under sections 23 and 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 was not met given the lack of credible evidence.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED the Applicant’s applications for leave to appeal and for an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicant’s convictions and sentences stand as determined. No investigation into the alleged jury irregularities will be conducted, and no new legal precedent was established by this ruling.