TH, R v

An interim indication that a jury has not reached verdicts, followed by unanimous verdicts after further deliberation, does not without more justify an inference that the deliberations lacked integrity. The time taken to reach the final verdicts must be viewed in the context of the deliberations as a whole.

Nor does the apparent distress of an individual juror, particularly in a trial concerning grave and distressing allegations, provide a proper basis for treating convictions as unsafe.

The applicant was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court of historical sexual offences against his daughter, including rape, attempted rape, indecent assault and indecency with a child. He received a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.

He sought permission to appeal against conviction. There was no challenge to the summing-up. The proposed ground relied on the course of the jury’s deliberations: after a majority direction, the jury indicated that further time might enable verdicts to be reached and returned unanimous guilty verdicts shortly afterwards. One juror appeared distressed.

Following refusal by the single judge, the applicant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal. The issue was whether those matters rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused. The proposed ground disclosed no basis for regarding the convictions as unsafe.

2. A note concerning the current state of jury deliberations is commonplace. The jury’s earlier inability to reach agreed or majority verdicts did not permit an adverse inference about the propriety or integrity of its deliberations.

3. The fact that the jury moved from an inability to return majority verdicts to unanimous verdicts in just under 20 minutes did not undermine the verdicts. That change followed more than six hours of discussion, and had to be assessed in that wider context.

4. The apparent distress of one juror also gave no proper basis for impugning the verdicts. The allegations concerned systematic sexual abuse of a child by her father over several years. The subject matter was inherently likely to cause distress to those who had heard the evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction refused after refusal by the single judge: [2009] EWCA Crim 2278.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: On 15 October 2008, the applicant was convicted by a jury of two counts of indecent assault, attempted rape, seven counts of indecency with a child and five counts of rape. On 19 November 2008, he received a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.