Hardy, R v

Interference with a juror in the performance of public service is a grave attack on the criminal justice system. Custody, sometimes for a substantial period, is inevitable where conduct is designed to dissuade a juror from properly performing that task.

Sentencing must nevertheless remain proportionate to the nature and degree of the interference. The court must consider the consequences of the conduct, including an aborted trial, together with the offender’s plea, mitigation and the particular circumstances of the encounter.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Nottingham Crown Court to perverting the course of justice. During a trial for grievous bodily harm, he approached a juror outside court and sought to influence the verdict. The juror reported the incident the next day and the trial was aborted.

The appellant was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. He appealed by leave of the Single Judge, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the deterrent need to protect jurors had been given disproportionate weight in the circumstances of this offence.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent stated. The sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment.
2. Interference with a juror is a very serious offence. The jury system is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, and jurors must be able to perform their public service without threats or encounters intended to dissuade them from complying with their oath. The authorities establish that those who interfere with jurors inevitably face custody, which may be substantial.
3. That need for deterrence does not displace proportionality. The appropriate sentence depends upon the nature and degree of the interference and all the circumstances of the particular offence.
4. The juror had resisted the appellant’s implicit threats and reported the matter promptly. The resulting abortion of the trial was serious and the sentencing judge was entitled to treat the waste of public resources as an aggravating consequence.
5. However, the encounter was accepted on the basis of plea to have been accidental rather than planned. The court also took account of the guilty plea, remorse and other mitigating circumstances. In the round, those matters made 30 months too long, while leaving a substantial custodial sentence necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal by leave of the Single Judge. It quashed the 30-month sentence and substituted 21 months’ imprisonment.
• Nottingham Crown Court: The appellant pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and was sentenced on 25 November 2004 to 30 months’ imprisonment.