R. v Andriamampandry

Save for administrative communications unconnected with the trial, a judge should ordinarily state in open court the nature and content of a jury communication. The same principle applies to notes received before the jury retires. If a note is not read in full, counsel should normally be allowed to see it.

An irregularity in dealing with a jury note does not render a conviction unsafe unless it could reasonably have deprived the defendant of a significant line of evidence or argument. Minor failures which do not undermine the safety of the conviction do not justify allowing the appeal.

The appellant entered a hotel guest’s room at night and assaulted her. He pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, but was tried before a jury at Reading Crown Court on the issue whether he intended to cause grievous bodily harm under section 18.

He was convicted on 7 December 2001 and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. His appeal against conviction challenged the trial judge’s handling of three notes sent by the jury while he was giving evidence, particularly the failure to disclose their full contents to defence counsel. The central question was whether any resulting procedural irregularity made the conviction unsafe.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court held that the governing principles stated in Gorman [1987] 85 CrApp R121 apply to jury notes received before retirement as well as afterwards. Except for administrative matters unconnected with the trial, the nature and content of a communication should ordinarily be stated in open court. The procedure prevents any appearance of private communication and enables proper assistance to be given to the jury.

2. Notes 10 and 13 were not read out in full or shown to defence counsel. That was an irregularity. If the judge did not consider it appropriate to read a note in full, it should have been handed to counsel. Note 12 was a comment requiring clarification. The judge sought clarification and received none. Whether such a note should be shown before clarification was a matter for the trial judge, although it should normally be shown if counsel requests it.

3. The irregularities were trivial. The judge had adequately dealt with notes 10 and 13, and none of the undisclosed material could reasonably have led to a significant line of evidence or argument of which the appellant was deprived. The conviction was therefore safe.

4. The court also observed that panic does not exclude the intent required by section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; it may give rise to that intent.

5. The appeal against sentence was allowed. Seven years’ imprisonment reflected greater criminality, persistence and injury than the facts justified. Taking account of the appellant’s age, good character, limited duration of the assault and the injuries actually suffered, the court substituted five years’ imprisonment, together with the order for deportation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2003] EWCA Crim 1974, dismissed the appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, substituting five years’ imprisonment.

• Reading Crown Court — On 7 December 2001, the appellant was convicted by a judge and jury of causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.