Thompson & Ors v R

After a verdict, evidence about jury deliberations is inadmissible. The rule has narrow exceptions where jurors may have wholly repudiated their oath or introduced extraneous, non-evidential material. A conviction is unsafe where such material may have compromised trial fairness.

Jurors have a collective responsibility to report suspected misconduct or outside interference immediately during the trial. Judges should give clear directions about that responsibility and expressly prohibit internet research or discussion. Written directions remain a matter for the trial judge’s judgment. Their omission from a written document does not undermine a conviction if the oral directions are adequate.

Six conviction appeals from Crown Courts were heard together because each raised an alleged jury irregularity. The appellants relied variously on post-verdict complaints about deliberations, internet research, possible juror contact with third parties, possible contamination from another trial, and a juror’s proposed experiment.

One appeal also challenged the direction on consent in a rape trial. Another challenged the absence of written directions on self-defence. The central questions were when the court could investigate alleged jury irregularity after verdict, and whether any proved or possible irregularity rendered a conviction unsafe.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed the appeals of Thompson, Crawford, Gomulu, Allen and Kasunga. It allowed Blake’s appeal and quashed his conviction.
2. Confidentiality of deliberations. Applying R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [2004] 1 AC 1118, evidence about deliberations after verdict was inadmissible. The two narrow exceptions concern a complete repudiation of the jury oath, and the introduction of extraneous material. The first inevitably makes a resulting conviction unsafe. In the second, the court may investigate the facts and must assess whether the material affected the safety of the conviction.
3. Jury conduct and internet use. Jurors have a collective responsibility, from the time they are sworn, to report misconduct, outside contact, internet research, or other irregularity to the trial judge immediately. Judges should give clear directions on that responsibility and expressly prohibit internet research or discussion. Internet research is extraneous material because neither party can know or answer material brought into deliberations.
4. Application to the appeals. Thompson’s juror had improperly researched the case online, but the admissible material gave no reason to think that the research affected the verdict. Crawford’s and Kasunga’s complaints were solely about deliberative pressure or reasoning and could not be investigated. The inquiries into alleged third-party contact in Gomulu’s case, and possible awareness of Allen’s further trial, found no evidence capable of affecting the verdicts.
5. Consent and written directions. Allen’s judge gave an accurate direction on consent. References to what the complainant did not “want”, when summarising her evidence, did not create the confusion identified in R v DT unreported, 17 February 2000. A judge is not required to put every legal direction in writing. Kasunga’s oral directions on self-defence were adequate.
6. Blake. The proposed experiment created a real possibility that extraneous material entered deliberations without investigation or a corrective direction. As the CCTV footage was the only evidence supporting conviction, the court was left in doubt about its safety. The conviction was quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In the conjoined appeals, the court allowed Blake’s appeal and quashed his conviction. It dismissed the remaining five appeals: [2010] EWCA Crim 1623.
• Crown Court. Thompson was convicted at Oxford; Crawford at Harrow; Gomulu at the Central Criminal Court; Allen at Newport, Isle of Wight; Blake at Newcastle upon Tyne; and Kasunga at Wood Green.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). A separate Attorney General application to increase Thompson’s sentence was rejected: [2010] EWCA Crim 748.