DA v R.

For the reasonable-cause defence under section 20(4) of the Juries Act 1974, the court must address the juror’s actual explanation for failing to be present. A failure to make a written complaint may be material, but it does not by itself establish that the absence was unreasonable. Where an accepted explanation shows that the juror attended in time, remained nearby and would have returned if instructed, the court must examine what was said by court staff and the juror’s continuing availability before convicting.

The appellant, a juror in a serious Crown Court trial, left after attending on a day when the jury was to resume deliberations. He had fallen out with other jurors and believed that he was being bullied or ganged up on. He and his wife spoke to reception, went home nearby while awaiting a promised telephone call, and he was later told that he had been discharged.

HHJ Carroll convicted him of failing to attend as a juror and imposed a £100 fine. The appellant sought to appeal after first pursuing a stated case; Collins J indicated that the proper route was the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appeal concerned, principally, whether the appellant had shown reasonable cause under section 20(4) of the Juries Act 1974.

1. Appeal allowed; conviction quashed. The Court granted an extension of time and allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellant may have had reasonable cause for his absence under section 20(4) of the Juries Act 1974.

2. The judge had accepted the appellant’s account of the events on the relevant morning. The appellant had attended court in good time, did not wish to re-enter the jury room because of his conflict with the other jurors, lived only five minutes from the court, and waited at home for a promised call. The judge also accepted that he would have returned immediately if told that he had to do so.

3. Those matters required analysis in determining whether the absence was unreasonable. The absence of a written complaint was surprising and could be material. It was nevertheless necessary to consider the explanation for leaving, the communication at the reception desk, what the appellant had been told, and his continuing availability near the court.

4. No further enquiry or challenge to that account was made, and the ruling did not address an explanation capable at least of establishing reasonable cause. The failure to address it was an error. The Court did not determine the allegations of actual or apparent bias, the need for witnesses, or the separate misdirection ground. Although the minimum fair-hearing requirements stated in R v Dodds were noted, they did not require determination on this appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Extension of time granted; appeal allowed and the conviction quashed: [2008] EWCA Crim 2394.
• Administrative Court — Following the Crown Court’s stated case, Collins J informed the appellant that the proper avenue of appeal was the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
• Crown Court at Woolwich — HHJ Carroll convicted the appellant of failing to attend as a juror and imposed a £100 fine, with seven days’ imprisonment in default.