R v. Abdroikof (Appellant) and another (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))R v. Abdroikof and another (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))R v. Williamson (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division))

The eligibility of police officers and Crown Prosecution Service lawyers for jury service does not remove the requirement that each jury be, and appear to be, impartial. The court must ask whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the particular facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

A police officer is not disqualified merely by occupation. Apparent bias may arise where the trial depends on a material conflict involving a police witness who shares a close local or professional connection with the juror. A lawyer employed by the prosecuting authority must not serve as a juror in a prosecution brought by that authority, because the juror’s professional identification with one side prevents justice from being seen to be done.

Three defendants appealed against unrelated convictions after their juries included persons professionally connected with criminal justice. Abdroikof’s jury foreman was a serving police officer, but the case did not materially turn on a conflict between police and defence evidence. Green’s jury included an officer serving in the same borough as the police sergeant whose evidence and conduct were materially disputed. Williamson’s jury foreman was a long-serving solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service, which brought the prosecution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all three appeals in [2005] EWCA Crim 1986, reported at [2005] 1 WLR 3538. The common issue before the House was whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude, on the facts of each trial, that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased.

1. Disposition. By a majority of three to two, the House dismissed Abdroikof’s appeal and allowed the appeals of Green and Williamson. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Baroness Hale and Lord Mance agreed with his reasoning and conclusions. Lord Rodger and Lord Carswell would have dismissed all three appeals.

2. Per Lord Bingham, Baroness Hale and Lord Mance, the governing question was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased. The common law test and the requirement of an independent and impartial tribunal under article 6 of the Convention were the same. Parliamentary removal of occupational ineligibility through section 321 and Schedule 33 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not abrogate those rules or require every eligible person to serve in every case.

3. Per Lord Bingham, with Baroness Hale and Lord Mance agreeing, Abdroikof’s appeal was dismissed. The police juror had no material connection with the witnesses or the case. The trial did not turn on an important conflict between police and defence evidence. His occupation alone was insufficient to establish a real possibility of bias.

4. Per Lord Bingham, Baroness Hale and Lord Mance, Green’s appeal was allowed and his convictions quashed. The alleged victim was a police sergeant whose evidence was materially disputed. The sergeant and juror shared the same local service background, and the juror’s station committed its cases to the trial court. A fair-minded and informed observer would regard the possible instinct to prefer a brother officer’s evidence as a real source of unfairness beyond ordinary warnings and directions.

5. Per Lord Bingham and Baroness Hale, whose conclusions Lord Mance adopted, Williamson’s appeal was allowed. Justice was not seen to be done where a full-time, salaried and long-serving lawyer employed by the prosecuting authority served as juror and foreman in that authority’s prosecution. The connection was institutional rather than merely personal. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal with an invitation to quash the convictions and determine any application for a retrial.

6. Lord Rodger and Lord Carswell dissented. They considered that Parliament had treated occupational predispositions as manageable through the oath, judicial directions and collective deliberation. In their view, without personal knowledge or a direct connection to the case, the jurors’ occupations did not create a real possibility that the juries’ verdicts were biased.

1. House of Lords: In [2007] UKHL 37 , dismissed Abdroikof’s appeal and allowed Green’s and Williamson’s appeals by a majority of three to two. Green’s convictions were quashed. Williamson’s case was remitted for the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions and rule on any retrial application.

2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2005] EWCA Crim 1986 , reported at [2005] 1 WLR 3538 , dismissed all three appeals. It held that the jurors’ occupations did not, without more, give rise to a real possibility of bias on the facts.

3. Crown Courts: Each appellant was convicted after a separate jury trial. The relevant juries included, respectively, a serving police officer, another serving police officer, and a solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service.