Summary of Court Opinion (Anonymized)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns applications for leave to appeal against convictions entered after a trial at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Katz and a jury on 19 January 2024. The single judge referred the matter to the full court limited to a single proposed ground of appeal alleging a jury irregularity arising from social media posts by the partner of the jury forewoman; a second proposed ground concerning the admission of WhatsApp messages was refused leave. The applicants also sought permission to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 relating to juror conduct.

At trial, one applicant (referred to below as "Co-Appellant") was convicted of murder and attempted murder as an accomplice; both applicants were convicted of perverting the course of justice for arranging the collection and destruction of a vehicle used in the offences. The offences occurred on 5 July 2019 and involved shootings and an attempted shooting captured on closed-circuit television. The jury was empanelled in October 2023, began deliberations in December 2023 and, after adjournment, resumed and returned unanimous guilty verdicts on 19 January 2024.

On 20 January 2024 one applicant (referred to below as "Appellant") discovered two comments on a social media account posted by the person described in the trial materials as the partner of the jury forewoman. One comment ("enjoy the showers") was forensically attributed to that partner and established to have been posted at 00:02 on 20 January 2024 (after the verdicts). The timing of the other comment could not be clearly established in early investigation but was later accepted as having been made on 16 January 2024 (during jury deliberations).

The trial judge referred the matter to the Registrar of Criminal Appeals and the police; police conducted an investigation, interviewed the forewoman and her partner, seized phones but were not given PINs or access to social media accounts, and examined jurors. Several jurors stated they had reached their verdicts based only on evidence given in court and that they had not been exposed to extraneous material. The police concluded the evidential test for further action was not met and took no further action.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the ground of jury irregularity (specifically whether the jury forewoman disclosed deliberative information to a third party whose social media posts might have influenced the jury), making the convictions unsafe.
2. Whether leave should be granted to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 relating to juror conduct.
3. Procedural issue: whether the single judge was correct to refuse leave on a separate proposed ground concerning the admission of WhatsApp messages.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The jury forewoman (the "Juror Forewoman") had been active during deliberations, took copious notes and discussed matters of fact with her partner (the "Juror Partner").
• The Juror Partner posted hostile social media comments about an applicant, including a comment suggesting the applicant would be "going to jail" before the verdicts were returned; this created an appearance of bias and raised a real risk that the jury received extraneous information.
• The forewoman breached her oath and legal responsibilities; any disclosure to her partner may have led to the partner researching and communicating prejudicial information to the forewoman, undermining trial fairness and the treatment of bad-character evidence.
• Refusal by the Juror Forewoman and Juror Partner to provide phone PINs and account access permits an adverse inference that incriminating communications would have been found; the police investigation was criticized as a "light touch" or inadequate.
• Counsel sought comparison to the hypothetical position had the conduct been discovered before verdicts and argued the trial judge would have discharged the jury; they sought leave to appeal on this basis.
• Separately, one advocate sought to renew a ground concerning the trial judge's refusal to discharge the jury after contested cross-examination and the admission of certain Instagram messages, but the court treated that ground as not renewed or not before it.

Crown's Arguments

• The second social-media posting ("enjoy the showers") was made at 00:02 on 20 January 2024, after the jury returned verdicts, and is therefore irrelevant to jury deliberations.
• The contested earlier posting was not shown to derive from disclosure by the Juror Forewoman to the Juror Partner; it was the kind of public comment that requires no special inside knowledge.
• There is no rule preventing family members of jurors from commenting on social media; such comments do not, without more, amount to jury misconduct.
• The police investigation was thorough: most jurors were interviewed; seven provided written statements; none reported being influenced or approached; and no independent evidence supports the allegation that the Juror Forewoman disclosed deliberations.
• Accordingly, there is no evidence of misconduct and no basis to conclude the verdicts are unsafe.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded on the basis of the disclosed investigation material and submissions from both sides. Key elements of the court's reasoning were:

• Scope of review and disclosure: The court concluded that the applicants and their counsel had been given disclosure of all relevant material to which they were entitled following a process that included independent review to protect juror anonymity and deliberation confidentiality.
• Police investigation findings: The investigative steps were summarised and relied upon — interviews of the Juror Forewoman and Juror Partner (both answering "no comment" at times), seizure and forensic examination of phones (forensic examination attributed the "enjoy the showers" post to the Juror Partner and dated it at 00:02 on 20 January 2024), and interviews/statements from other jurors (none reporting influence or exposure to extraneous material).
• Assessment of timing and content of posts: The court noted the admitted timing of the "enjoy the showers" post (after verdicts) and that the earlier post's exact timing could not be clearly established in early investigation (though a later comment in the record records acceptance that it had been posted on 16 January 2024). The court emphasised there was no evidence the Juror Forewoman had communicated deliberative details, votes, or arguments to the Juror Partner.
• On the question of inference from silence/refusal to provide PINs: The court acknowledged submissions inviting an adverse inference from the Juror Forewoman's and Juror Partner's refusal to disclose PINs or grant access, but concluded there was no independent evidence to support the assertion that prohibited communications occurred and no realistic prospect of such evidence emerging.
• Reliance on jurors' accounts: Eleven jurors were contacted and the seven who provided statements showed unanimity that they had decided solely on in-court evidence, that phones had been managed during deliberations, and that no third party influence had occurred. The court placed weight on those accounts.
• Assessment of significance: Even assuming, in the applicants' favour, that the earlier post was made during deliberations, the court did not consider that the circumstances suggested the Juror Forewoman had relayed deliberative content to the Juror Partner or that any relayed information had materially influenced the jury. At most the Juror Forewoman may have identified which case she was considering — the court treated that as unsurprising and not necessarily prejudice-causing.
• On the separately raised "K-Koke" ground: the court agreed with the single judge that that ground had not been renewed and, in any event, there was no viable argument that the trial judge's decision not to discharge the jury was required to be overturned on appeal.
• Conclusion on safety of verdicts: Taking the totality of disclosed material and the content of juror statements, the court found no sufficient evidence of irregularity to render the convictions unsafe or to justify granting leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that the appellants' applications for leave to appeal on the basis of the alleged jury irregularity (and for admission of fresh evidence under section 23) were denied on the facts and reasoning set out by the court.
• The court concluded that the police investigation and the disclosed material did not establish that the jury forewoman disclosed deliberative information to a third party or that any such disclosure materially affected the jury's verdicts; the verdicts were therefore treated as safe.
• No new legal precedent was established by this decision; the ruling rests on the assessment of the particular facts, the scope of disclosure, the jurors' accounts, and the absence of independent evidence of impermissible communication or influence.