Cornwall v R.

A juror’s publicly expressed views on crime, drugs, policing or sentencing do not, without more, establish a real possibility of bias. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, considering the particular trial, would regard the juror as possibly partial to a party or unable to decide the evidence under the judge’s directions.

Views directed to the criminal justice system or punishment are distinct from prejudgment of the factual issues at trial. A post-trial article and a speculative commercial motive likewise do not show bias unless they indicate that the juror failed to determine the case impartially.

For a young offender sentenced for murder, the statutory starting point under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 remains subject to the crime’s individual seriousness. Carrying a knife while dealing drugs, and using it to kill, are seriously aggravating features.

The applicant, aged 17 at trial, was convicted by a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court of murdering Alan Reilly. He received detention for life with a minimum term of 15 years less time served.

After trial, it emerged that the jury foreman was a columnist for The Sun who had published strong views about crime, drugs, knives, policing, judges and sentencing. The applicant sought to challenge the conviction on the ground that those views, and the foreman’s later article about jury service, created actual or apparent bias. He also sought permission to appeal the minimum term.

The central issues were whether the juror’s published opinions created a real possibility of partiality towards the prosecution, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the facts and aggravating features of the murder.

1. Conviction appeal. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The applicable question was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, aware of all the circumstances, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the juror lacked impartiality.

2. The columnist’s published views did not meet that test. They concerned policing, sentencing, the seriousness of knife crime, drugs and the operation of the criminal justice system. They did not show partiality to the prosecution in deciding whether this applicant had acted in self-defence or under provocation. The trial judge had given proper directions and there was no evidence that the juror had acted otherwise than in accordance with his oath.

3. An article concerning so-called mercy killings did express a view capable of being seen as challenging the law in a different type of case. It did not affect this trial, which involved no such issue. The court added, without deciding the effect in a future case, that a writer summoned to try issues on which the writer has expressed strong opinions about the law should alert the judge so that the matter can be considered at once.

4. The foreman’s post-trial article did not demonstrate actual bias or a real possibility of bias. It did not indicate that he had decided the case other than on the evidence and directions. The suggested commercial incentive to secure a conviction was speculative and did not establish partiality.

5. Sentence. Permission to appeal sentence was refused. Under section 269(5) and Schedule 21 paragraph 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the applicable starting point was 12 years because the applicant was under 18 when he offended. That was a starting point, not a limit on the minimum term.

6. The sentencing judge was entitled to make factual findings for sentence. He was not required to speculate whether the jury might have regarded the killing as excessive self-defence or as falling just short of provocation, because the jury had decided guilt and no more. The judge was entitled to find a revenge attack with an intent to kill. He also properly treated persistent knife carrying in connection with drug dealing, and the eventual use of the knife to kill, as seriously aggravating. The 15-year minimum term was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2009] EWCA Crim 2458, granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal; refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Chelmsford Crown Court — before HH Judge Ball QC, a jury convicted the applicant of murder and he was sentenced to detention for life with a minimum term of 15 years less time served.