Summary of Judgment — The Crown v Appellant (Court of Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a conviction after a trial in the Crown Court. The Appellant was tried before Judge Kamill and a jury and, on 18 August 2023, was convicted of multiple offences including rape, multiple counts of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of a prohibited air weapon, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, threats to kill, and controlling a child aged 13–17 who was subject to sexual exploitation. Two counts were acquittals and three further rape counts were left on the file. Sentence was imposed on 8 December 2023: an extended sentence of 23 years (18 years custody, 5 years extension) for rape, with concurrent sentences for other offences. A co-defendant was convicted of arranging or facilitating sexual exploitation of a child and received a suspended sentence.

The full court granted leave to appeal on two grounds relating to the trial judge's handling of jury friction and jury irregularity procedures, and allowed an extension of time for filing the Appellant's Notice. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal before Judges Edis, Cavanagh and Eyre.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge misdirected herself or otherwise erred in dealing with a serious jury irregularity involving altercations between jurors and the withholding of a jury note, such that the judge wrongly concluded the jury was unable to function.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to undertake or direct an appropriate investigation (including isolating jurors and further enquiries) after disclosure of a clerk/usher note reporting an earlier incident, purportedly because of 'a lack of time'.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as particularised)

• The judge failed to follow the steps in Crim PD 8.7 (as distilled in Archbold), specifically: (1) to consider isolating the jurors concerned; (2) to consult properly with counsel and invite submissions on establishing basic facts; (3) to consider provisional measures and enquire of court staff; (4) to seek to establish the basic facts of the irregularity; and (5) to further consult with advocates about how to proceed.
• As a consequence of those alleged failures, the judge did not properly consider whether there was a real possibility of bias, whether the defendants could receive a fair trial, or what safeguards were necessary; the judge should have adjourned overnight rather than discharging a juror on the late afternoon of 17 August 2023.

Respondent / Crown Position

• The Crown accepted that jury friction had occurred but submitted the judge acted within her discretion in managing the irregularity, including giving guidance in open court and later discharging the disruptive juror when the jury collectively indicated they could not continue with that juror.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sequence of events and the judge's conduct against Crim PD 8.7 (and related guidance in Archbold and the Crown Court Compendium). Key factual points: an altercation was reported shortly after the jury retired on 16 August; the usher isolated one juror and the court clerk and usher provided written notes; the judge sent the jury home and disclosed the bailiffs' notes to counsel the next morning; a juror's written complaint alleging abusive language and threats from "Juror 3" was received; the judge addressed the jury in open court to encourage cooperative deliberation and to remind them of proper conduct; later the jury returned unanimous verdicts on several counts; subsequently a further note complained of continued threatening behaviour; the jury indicated collectively they could deliberate more safely without Juror 3 and wrote a note to that effect.

The court mapped these facts onto the seven steps in Crim PD 8.7: it found that initial steps (isolation of the immediate disruptive juror by the usher, obtaining written records, raising the matter with counsel) were followed; the judge exercised judgment in the morning of 17 August to give open-court guidance and to invite further deliberation rather than immediately pursue extended questioning of jurors; the court accepted that the judge need not adopt counsel's proposed questions and was entitled to decide that the bailiffs' notes and the juror's complaint sufficed to establish the basic facts for the next step; when further misbehaviour occurred the judge called the jury into court, asked whether they could continue as a body, received the bailiff's report that the jury wished Juror 3 discharged and a written jury note confirming that position, and then discharged Juror 3 rather than the entire jury.

The appellate court emphasised: (a) the Practice Direction provides structure but allows case-specific judgment; (b) there was no suggestion the friction reflected bias or failure to fulfil the oath; (c) several unanimous verdicts had been reached despite friction; (d) the problem arose very shortly after retirement and was personality-driven and threatening conduct by a single juror; (e) given the length and seriousness of the trial, discharge of the whole jury and retrial would have been undesirable if a lesser measure (discharging the disruptive juror) was appropriate. On that analysis the trial judge's actions fell within the proper exercise of discretion and did not render the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED — The appeal is dismissed.

Implications: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial convictions and concluded the trial judge acted within her discretion in addressing the jury irregularity, including discharging the disruptive juror after appropriate enquiries and consultation. The direct effect is that the Appellant's convictions and sentence remain in force. The court treated the decision as an application of existing guidance (Crim PD 8.7, Archbold, and relevant authorities) rather than the creation of a new precedent.