Sala, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was tried in the Crown Court in The City before Judge Bourne sitting with Judge Baker and Judge Hill on an indictment alleging multiple counts of rape, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and related offences involving three complainants (Complainant 1, Complainant 2 and Complainant 3). Each complainant had been in an intimate relationship with the Appellant and alleged physical or sexual violence during those relationships. The Appellant did not give evidence and pleaded that all sexual activity was consensual.

The prosecution were permitted to adduce the Appellant's previous convictions under s.101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the underlying facts of those convictions were excluded. During deliberations the jury gave rise to concerns communicated via court staff and jury notes about juror engagement, possible reliance on the Appellant's previous convictions and a juror using a puzzle book. The trial judge followed the procedure in Criminal Practice Direction 8.7, gave reiterated directions to the jury (with agreement of counsel), refused an application to discharge the jury, gave a majority direction and the jury convicted the Appellant by majority on nine counts and acquitted on three counts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Court should direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission under s.23A(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to investigate a possible jury irregularity arising from the jury's conduct during deliberations.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury such that the Appellant's convictions are unsafe, having regard to alleged juror non‑engagement, alleged reliance on previous convictions and alleged use of a puzzle book during deliberations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The cumulative effect of (a) a staff report that jurors were "not getting on" and that one juror was not engaging; (b) a jury note suggesting some jurors were deciding a charge because it matched the Appellant's previous conviction; and (c) observation of a juror looking at a puzzle book amounted to a serious jury irregularity making the convictions unsafe.
• Accordingly the Appellant sought leave to appeal and invited investigation under s.23A(1) by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Respondent's Arguments

• The matters complained of did not amount to a serious jury irregularity; in any event the trial judge dealt with them correctly in accordance with Criminal Practice Direction 8.7 and by giving directions agreed by counsel.
• The judge was entitled to conclude there was no necessity to discharge the jury; the mixed verdicts (convictions on some counts and acquittals on others) demonstrated proper engagement with the directions and evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the established common‑law principle that jury deliberations are confidential and that only two narrow exceptions permit inquiry: (1) complete repudiation of the jury's oath (e.g. deciding by coin toss) and (2) introduction of extraneous material. The court noted the Crim PD 8.7 procedure for dealing with jury irregularities (seven steps) and recalled the high threshold for discharging a jury (necessity).

Applying s.23A(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court considered whether an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission was necessary. It concluded that the court had before it sufficient documents and transcripts to determine whether there was an arguable ground of appeal and that subsection (1)(c) was therefore not satisfied. It further concluded that neither common‑law exception applied: there was no suggestion of extraneous material, and the evidence did not approach a "complete repudiation" of the jury's oath.

On the merits the court treated the three concerns as individually unlikely to found an appeal and concluded that, cumulatively, they had been addressed promptly and in accordance with Crim PD 8.7. The judge gave firm, reiterated directions agreed by counsel; no departure from the prescribed procedure was alleged. The court accepted that jurors may initially misunderstand directions but that reiterated directions could be relied on. The judge's discretionary refusal to discharge the jury was therefore within proper bounds. The court also relied on the jury's conduct (sending questions during retirement and returning mixed verdicts) as positive evidence of proper engagement.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Direct effect: The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused, and no direction was made under s.23A(1) for the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate. The Appellant's convictions stand. The court stated that the evidence fell far short of indicating any complete repudiation of the jury's oath and that it was not arguable that any jury irregularity rendered the convictions unsafe.

No new precedent was established; the decision applied existing principles concerning confidentiality of jury deliberations, Crim PD 8.7 procedure and the standard for discharge.