Miazga, R v

A defendant’s statement that he recognised a juror as someone he may have seen in a public place, without any personal acquaintance or further relevant connection, cannot found an arguable allegation of actual or apparent jury bias.

A modest difference between co-defendants’ minimum terms is justified where material personal differences, including age, influence over a co-offender and criminal record, rationally support it.

The applicant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of two murders, theft and attempted theft offences. The prosecution alleged that he and a co-accused had jointly attacked two brothers and then used one victim’s bank card.

After conviction, the applicant said that he had recognised a juror as a person he had seen in a shop. He had not raised the matter with his legal representatives during the trial. He also sought leave to appeal against his 25-year minimum term because his co-accused had received a 23-year minimum term.

The court considered whether the asserted recognition could establish jury bias and whether the sentencing difference was unjustified.

1. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The interpreter’s evidence was accepted. It showed only that the applicant believed that he had seen a juror in a public place and that he did not know the juror personally. There was no basis for construing her statement differently.

2. That limited recognition could not support a successful allegation of actual or apparent bias. It therefore cast no doubt on the fairness of the trial or the safety of the convictions.

3. Leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The two-year difference between the applicant’s 25-year minimum term and his co-accused’s 23-year minimum term was justified. The co-accused was younger, while the applicant was in a position of influence over him. The applicant also had the worse previous record.

4. Those features provided ample justification for the relatively modest disparity in minimum terms.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused leave to appeal against conviction and, following an oral application, against sentence.
• Luton Crown Court On 12 May 2008, convicted the applicant of two murders, theft and attempted theft offences; imposed concurrent life sentences with a 25-year minimum term for the murders.