Abdroikov & Ors, R v

Police officers, Crown Prosecution Service employees and other persons involved in the administration of justice are not disqualified from jury service merely because of their occupation. The removal of occupational ineligibility by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 supports their service as citizens selected at random. The decisive question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, considering all the circumstances, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

A particular connection with participants or special knowledge of facts outside the evidence may make an otherwise eligible juror unsuitable. The juror must disclose it and the trial judge must decide whether the juror should sit. The common law and Article 6 impartiality inquiry ordinarily require the same approach.

Three unrelated appeals against conviction were heard together because each concerned the composition of the jury after the removal of occupational ineligibility for jury service.

In Abdroikov’s and Green’s trials, a serving police officer sat as a juror. The police juror in Abdroikov’s case disclosed, during retirement, that he might encounter officers involved in the case. Green learned after his conviction that a police officer who had served in the same borough as the prosecution witness had sat on the jury, although the two officers did not know each other. In Williamson’s rape trial, the defence unsuccessfully challenged for cause a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor who did not know anyone connected with the prosecution.

Abdroikov also appealed his aggregate sentence of 16 years. The central issue was whether the occupational position of these jurors, without a material personal connection or special knowledge, made the trials unfair.

1. The court dismissed all three appeals against conviction. It held that the statutory removal of occupational ineligibility by section 321 and Schedule 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 meant that police officers, prosecutors, judges and other justice-system personnel were eligible for jury service. Their occupation alone did not create a real possibility of bias.

2. The distinction was between general eligibility and suitability for a particular trial. A person selected for jury service serves as a citizen, takes the jury oath, and must decide only on the evidence and the judge’s directions. The possibility that a juror has professional knowledge, might influence fellow jurors, or may unconsciously hold a prejudice did not justify a categorical occupational exclusion. Random selection, collective deliberation, judicial directions and the duty to disclose relevant connections provided important safeguards.

3. Where a juror has special knowledge of the facts or of persons involved in the case beyond that available to fellow jurors, the matter must be disclosed. The judge must then decide whether the juror should sit or remain on the jury. Applying the test indicated in Porter v Magill, Magill v Weeks [2002] 2 AC 357, the court asked whether a fair-minded and informed observer would find a real possibility of bias in all the circumstances. The common-law and Article 6 inquiries did not require separate treatment in these appeals.

4. There was no relevant personal connection or extraneous knowledge in any of the three trials. The police officers in Green’s case did not know one another. The CPS solicitor in Williamson’s case knew no person connected with the prosecution. The convictions were therefore safe.

5. Abdroikov’s sentence appeal was allowed in part. Although each consecutive sentence was individually proper, the aggregate term of 16 years was excessive when assessed for totality. The sentence on count 1 was reduced from 11 years to nine years, leaving the consecutive five-year sentence on count 5 intact and producing a total of 14 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2005] EWCA Crim 1986, dismissed the conviction appeals of Abdroikov, Green and Williamson. It allowed Abdroikov’s sentence appeal to the limited extent of reducing his aggregate term from 16 to 14 years.
• Crown Court — Abdroikov was convicted at the Central Criminal Court; Green was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court; and Williamson was convicted at Warrington Crown Court. The lower-court judgments were not cited.