Anonymised Summary of Judgment by Judge Bryan

Factual and Procedural Background

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restrictions on publication in sexual offence cases were applied to this matter and the judgment has been anonymised accordingly.

The Applicant was tried in the Crown Court before Judge Nadim. On 14 April 2023 the Applicant (aged 36 at that time) was convicted of multiple counts of sexual activity with a child contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Counts 1–4) and of an offence of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice (Count 5). Sentencing took place on 28 April 2023: concurrent terms of 10 years' imprisonment on Counts 1–4 and a consecutive term of 1 year on Count 5, producing a total effective sentence of 11 years' imprisonment. A co-accused pleaded guilty to Count 5 and received 12 months' imprisonment.

The Applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction out of time. The Applicant renewed an application for an extension of time (seeking 574 days) for leave to appeal against conviction following a refusal by the Single Judge. Fresh solicitors opened a file on 5 February 2024 and the renewed application was lodged on 6 December 2024.

The sole ground advanced in the renewed application concerned a jury note received during the trial on 13 April 2023 in which jurors reported that "men in the gallery were stood outside at the entrance, appearing to watch the door as we all came out. It was really intimidating and concerning." The Applicant contended that the trial judge's response to that jury note was inadequate, leaving open a real risk of prejudice and rendering the convictions unsafe.

Facts relevant to the offences as set out at trial: the complainant (referred to in the trial as being 17 at the time of disclosure) alleged that sexual activity occurred between the Applicant and the complainant when she was aged 14–15. The prosecution case described grooming conduct by the Applicant, provision of alcohol and cigarettes and repeated sexual contact during a period of months. The prosecution also alleged that, after the police investigation and before a re-scheduled hearing, the Applicant arranged for a known associate (the co-accused) to approach the complainant's associates to offer payment for non-attendance at court (Count 5). The defence case was that the Applicant believed the complainant was over 16 and denied involvement with the co-accused.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant should be granted an extension of time (574 days) to apply for leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Whether, in light of the jury note and the trial judge's response to it, the convictions were unsafe (i.e., whether prejudice or unfairness arose from that jury irregularity and the court's handling of it).
3. Whether the trial process (including the steps taken after the jury note) complied with the structured approach recommended in guidance (paragraph 26M of the Criminal Practice Direction 2015) and whether any departure affected safety of conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The convictions are unsafe because the judge's response to the jury note was inadequate and left a real risk of prejudice to the Applicant.
• Trial counsel responded to the jury note without adequate reflection or instructions from the Applicant and indicated he would not seek discharge of the jury.
• The behaviour of the men observed by jurors was intimidating and could have led jurors to form the view that those men were acting on behalf of the Applicant.
• The manner in which the matter was addressed in court was arguably unsatisfactory and the agreed response conceded there may have been attempts to intimidate the jury.
• If jurors were left with a concern that the Applicant was linked to intimidation, that could have affected their decision-making and rendered the convictions unsafe.

Defence / Trial Counsel's Response

• Trial counsel explained in a written account that he knew the men in the public gallery to be associates/friends of the Applicant (they had attended frequently and had been present at a conference with the Applicant).
• Trial counsel stated he did obtain the Applicant's instructions not to seek discharge of the jury and that continuation was the appropriate course given the clarity of the complainant's evidence and the practical disadvantages of discharge (delay, Applicant remanded in custody, likely refusal of bail).
• Trial counsel spoke strongly to the persons thought to be concerned and nothing further adverse occurred; counsel considered a further direction unnecessary and potentially highlighting the issue in a prejudicial way.
• Trial counsel regarded the trial judge's reassurance that "appropriate measures have been taken" and the summing-up direction to decide on the evidence and to set aside emotion as effectively instructing the jury to ignore the incident.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The application for extension of time was 18 months out of time and there was no adequate explanation for the delay.
• The jury did not express any concern specifically about the Applicant's behaviour; the note referred to observers in the public gallery.
• The trial judge adopted an appropriate approach in response to the jury note and the direction given to the jury was appropriate.
• Trial counsel was confident he had instructions from the Applicant not to apply to discharge the jury and, in any event, such an application would not have succeeded.
• No prejudice or unfairness arose that could render the convictions unsafe.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the relevant statutory anonymity provisions (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992) and the convictions and sentence imposed in the Crown Court. The renewed application sought an extension of time for leave to appeal and relied solely on the asserted inadequacy of the trial judge's handling of a jury note about alleged intimidation by men in the public gallery.

The court examined the content of the jury note (jurors describing men in the gallery appearing to watch the entrance and expressing that it was "intimidating and concerning") and recited the judge's open-court response: the judge assured the jury that appropriate measures had been taken, informed them that a police officer involved in the case was sitting in the public gallery, and invited jurors to raise any further concerns. No further concerns were raised by the jury.

The court analysed the procedural steps actually taken in light of the structured seven-step approach set out in paragraph 26M of the Criminal Practice Direction 2015 (the court noted that the 2023 Practice Direction was not yet in force at the time). It recorded that the formal seven-step process was not followed in any formal sense and observed that a slower, more detailed process would have been preferable because it assists in reaching a reasoned conclusion on how best to respond.

The court then applied the facts known to the judge at the time: the jury note appeared to come from more than one juror, and the conduct reported related to what "everyone would have been observing." The court reasoned that isolating particular jurors was probably unnecessary in these circumstances. The court considered whether a direction clarifying that the observers' actions were not the Applicant's responsibility should have been given but recognised that such a direction could have highlighted a connection that did not exist and could have prejudiced the Applicant (particularly because there was no evidence linking the Applicant to the observers and the Applicant was remanded).

The court emphasised there was no reference in the note to the Applicant himself and no basis to infer that jurors suspected the Applicant's involvement. The court considered that asking the jury to remain true to their oath was unnecessary because there was nothing in the circumstances to indicate that the jurors' ability to follow directions was in doubt; moreover, the jury had previously been directed to bring to the judge's attention any perceived failure of a juror to perform duties, and the judge's earlier homily had already emphasised not allowing emotion to influence their decision-making.

The court concluded that, even though the formal structured approach could have been followed more carefully, a more detailed discussion would not have produced a different outcome on the facts of this case: the complaint reported by the jury was "relatively low grade," did not implicate the Applicant, and further elaboration might have created prejudice. What was required and what occurred was reassurance to the jury that the issue had been dealt with and a clear invitation to declare any further concerns — precisely the steps taken by the judge. The absence of any recurrence of the described conduct reinforced the adequacy of the response.

The court further found there had been no misdirection to the jury on the issue and that no prejudice or unfairness had been caused to the Applicant that could render the convictions unsafe. The court also addressed the lengthy delay in seeking leave to appeal, noting there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay and that all relevant facts were known at the time of conviction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and the associated application for an extension of time. The core ruling can be summarised as: DISMISSED.

Implications:

• The convictions and sentence as imposed by the Crown Court stand.
• The court held that, on the facts of this case, the judge's response to the jury note was sufficient and did not render the convictions unsafe; therefore no new appellate precedent was established on the handling of this type of jury note beyond the court's factual conclusion here.
• The court emphasised the value of following the structured approach in guidance (paragraph 26M of the Criminal Practice Direction 2015) when dealing with jury irregularities, but found that the absence of strict formal adherence in this instance did not change the outcome because the substance of the response was appropriate and non-prejudicial.
• No extension of time was granted because the Applicant did not demonstrate good reasons for the substantial delay in seeking leave to appeal.

---

This summary is strictly confined to information contained in the provided opinion and has been fully anonymised in accordance with the instructions provided.