Cepe, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was charged with seven offences against a woman referred to as "V": controlling or coercive behaviour, false imprisonment, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, sexual assault, assault by penetration, rape, and damaging property. The Appellant pleaded guilty to damaging property. Following a trial in the Crown Court at Wood Green before Recorder Lewis KC and a jury, the Appellant was convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and counts relating to assault and sexual offences, but acquitted of false imprisonment. The Appellant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The current application concerns leave to appeal against conviction based on the judge's decisions regarding the discharge of jurors during deliberations. The application was referred to the full court by the Registrar.

V is entitled to lifelong anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, preventing identification in publications.

The factual details of the offences were not elaborated upon, but V gave evidence describing a pattern of controlling behaviour and incidents of physical and sexual violence. The prosecution also relied on a witness who observed V's distress and injuries, and on the Appellant's previous harassment conviction. The Appellant denied the allegations in evidence.

The jury's central task was to assess the truthfulness and reliability of V's evidence. The prosecution evidence, if accepted, was sufficient for conviction. The judge's legal directions were unchallenged.

During jury deliberations, concerns arose about the conduct and behaviour of certain jurors, leading to judicial intervention and the discharge of one juror. The judge refused to discharge the entire jury or another juror who was alleged to have exhibited unconscious bias.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in refusing to discharge the entire jury despite allegations of bias and hostility within the jury room.
2. Whether the discharge of one juror (J10) was justified given concerns about his conduct and potential bias.
3. Whether another juror (J5) should have been discharged due to alleged unconscious bias against persons of Turkish origin.
4. Whether the convictions are unsafe due to the judge's handling of jury irregularities and discharge decisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The discharge of juror J10, based on his personal views rejecting the prosecution case and disbelieving V's evidence, created a risk that other jurors would feel unable to challenge the prosecution case for fear of association with J10's views.
• Juror J5 should have been discharged due to unconscious bias against persons of Turkish origin, evidenced by his generalisation that Turkish people become angry easily and a comment that the Appellant was lying because he blinked frequently.
• The questioning of jurors about their ability to remain true to their oaths may not reliably detect unconscious bias, as jurors may honestly believe they are impartial despite such bias.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge conducted proper enquiries and ensured the remaining jurors could try the case fairly in accordance with their oaths.
• The jury's subsequent question about evidence and the not guilty verdict on one count demonstrate their ability to consider the evidence independently and fairly.
• Comments by J5 about persons of Turkish origin were not clearly adverse and were appropriately addressed by the judge's questioning and directions.
• The conventional question to jurors about adherence to their oaths remains a valid and necessary safeguard, even in the context of unconscious bias.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the difficult and rapidly evolving situation faced by the judge, involving multiple jury notes alleging hostility, bullying, and bias among jurors. The judge acted in accordance with Criminal Practice Direction 8.7, conducting careful enquiries and isolating jurors involved in complaints.

Regarding juror J10, the judge noted pre-existing concerns about his distracted and disruptive behaviour during trial evidence, including smirking and use of a mobile phone. J10’s refusal to engage in deliberations and the allegations of bias raised by other jurors justified his discharge. The judge properly applied the legal test for discharge based on the real possibility of bias and the need to maintain proper jury function.

The court rejected the submission that discharging J10 would chill other jurors or inhibit their deliberations, noting that all remaining jurors confirmed their ability to remain true to their oaths and that the jury’s subsequent conduct supported this.

Concerning juror J5, the court found no reason to conclude a real risk of bias despite the generalised comment about Turkish people. The judge’s questioning and directions were sufficient to address any concerns. The court emphasized that individual jurors’ assessments of demeanour or body language do not necessarily constitute bias.

Overall, the judge’s decisions on jury management and discharge were within the proper legal framework, carefully reasoned, and supported by the evidence and observations made during the trial.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal but ultimately DISMISSED the appeal against conviction.

The judge’s handling of juror discharge and jury irregularities was appropriate and legally sound. The decision to discharge juror J10 was justified, and the refusal to discharge the entire jury or juror J5 was correct. The jury was able to deliberate fairly and return verdicts in accordance with the evidence and law. No new precedent was established, and the direct effect is the maintenance of the convictions and sentence imposed on the Appellant.