McMahon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted on 19 October 2023 at the Crown Court at Liverpool before His Honour Judge Byrne of two counts of rape and acquitted of a third count of anal rape. On 22 November 2023, the Applicant, then aged 32, was sentenced to extended imprisonment terms for the convictions. The Applicant, acting in person, sought an extension of time to appeal the convictions following refusal by a Single Judge.

The complainant had been in a relationship with the Applicant and alleged non-consensual sexual acts on two occasions. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by evidence from a link worker and a domestic abuse case officer. The defence denied the allegations, asserting that all sexual activity was consensual.

The Applicant was originally tried in January 2023, where the jury was divided on the rape charges but convicted him of other offences related to the same complainant. During the retrial, several jury notes raised concerns about juror capacity, fear of repercussions, and intimidation by the Applicant’s conduct. The Judge addressed these concerns by providing reassurances and directions to the jury, ultimately refusing the Applicant’s application to discharge the jury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial Judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury despite concerns of prejudice and animosity affecting the jury's ability to deliver an impartial verdict.
2. Whether the Applicant’s conduct during trial prejudiced the fairness of the proceedings.
3. Whether the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The conviction is unsafe because the jury exhibited prejudice and animosity towards the Applicant, which impacted their decision-making.
• The jury could not be trusted to deliver verdicts based solely on evidence due to this prejudice.
• The Judge should have discharged the jury to preserve the fairness of the trial.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Applicant showed inappropriate aggression and abusive behaviour throughout the trial, including making a direct threat to the complainant’s life.
• The jury was properly reassured and directed by the Judge, and there is no evidence they considered anything other than the evidence presented.
• The jury’s acquittal on one charge demonstrates their impartiality and careful consideration of the evidence.
• The Judge’s direction to disregard the Applicant’s conduct was a generous interpretation and appropriate under the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal was submitted late without explanation. The court agreed with the Single Judge that the ground of appeal was unarguable. The court examined the jury notes and the Judge’s responses, finding that the Judge acted properly in addressing the jurors’ concerns and in refusing to discharge the jury.

The court accepted that the Applicant’s conduct was volatile and potentially intimidating but was satisfied that the jury was properly directed to disregard such conduct. The jury’s careful consideration of the evidence was evidenced by their acquittal on one count, indicating no prejudice or animosity affected their verdicts. The court concluded there was no evidence that the jury failed to comply with their oaths.

Accordingly, the court refused the extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. It also noted the unmeritorious nature of the application and made a loss of time order to address the waste of court resources.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Applicant’s application for an extension of time and refused leave to appeal against conviction.

The decision directly upholds the convictions and sentencing imposed by the Crown Court. No new precedent was established. The court emphasized the importance of jury impartiality and proper judicial directions in maintaining a fair trial, and it sanctioned the Applicant for pursuing an unmeritorious appeal by making a loss of time order.