Edwards, R v

A trial judge should remind jurors not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury. An omission is an irregularity, but it does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess the safety of the verdict in the whole of the circumstances. Relevant matters include whether there is any suggestion of an improper discussion and the strength of the evidence supporting the verdict.

The appellant was convicted at Warrington Crown Court of two counts of handling stolen goods and was sentenced to concurrent terms of nine months’ imprisonment. The prosecution relied on evidence that his Land Rover incorporated parts from stolen vehicles. The appellant maintained that he had innocently acquired legitimate parts and that work carried out by mechanics might explain the stolen components.

On appeal, he did not challenge the judge’s directions on the evidence or law. His sole ground was that the verdicts were unsafe because the judge had not told the jury not to discuss the case with persons outside the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge erred by failing to tell the jury that they should not discuss the case with anyone outside their number. That was the usual and proper direction.
2. The error did not, however, necessarily render the verdicts unsafe. The issue was the safety of the verdicts after considering all the circumstances, rather than the mere existence of the omission.
3. There was no suggestion that any juror had in fact discussed the case improperly. The trial was short. Although the jurors might not previously have sat on a jury, they had almost certainly seen a video explaining their task, including the need not to discuss the case with others.
4. The evidence against the appellant was extremely strong. The stolen vehicle parts, the disputed account of the work done at ALS, and the prosecution challenge to the receipt and respraying account gave rise to powerful inferences against him.
5. R v Burley [2001] EWCA Crim 731 did not require a different result. That case involved numerous defects in the conduct of the trial. Its judgment itself indicated that the failure to warn jurors against outside discussion might not, standing alone, have made the conviction unsafe. On the circumstances of this case, the court was unpersuaded that either verdict was unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeal against conviction dismissed. The omission of the jury warning did not render the verdicts unsafe.
• Warrington Crown Court — On 12 May 2004, the appellant was convicted after trial of two counts of handling stolen goods and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrently.