Lambeth, R v

A trial judge must direct jurors at the outset that they may decide the case only on evidence heard in court and may discuss it only privately with fellow jurors. The judge must also warn against independent internet research. Such warnings promote the jury’s collective responsibility to prevent and report misconduct.

However, an omitted or delayed warning does not necessarily render a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess whether there is evidence of an actual irregularity and the omission’s effect in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of unlawful wounding. She appealed against her conviction on the ground, for which permission had been granted, that the trial judge had failed at the outset to give the jury the usual directions about discussing the case only in private and only with fellow jurors.

There was no transcript of the start of the trial. The court proceeded on the assumption favourable to the appellant that the directions had not been given until the end of the second day. A further issue was the judge’s refusal to warn the jury against carrying out their own internet research.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge ought to have given the usual jury-conduct directions at the outset, in accordance with the guidance set out in R v Oliver [1996] 2 Cr.App.R 514. Jurors must decide the case only on the evidence heard in court and must discuss it only privately with one another.

2. The omission did not automatically make the conviction unsafe. The correct question was whether, in the circumstances, an irregularity had occurred that cast doubt on the conviction’s safety. There was no indication from the jury, when they were later reminded of their obligations, that anything had gone wrong. The evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

3. The judge also ought to have warned the jury not to conduct their own internet enquiries. A warning is not an invitation to investigate. It places jurors on guard against misconduct by another juror and supports their collective responsibility to bring any such conduct to the judge’s attention.

4. That further omission likewise did not affect the safety of this verdict. There was no suggestion that internet material had been consulted or that any such material could have assisted on the issues in the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against conviction.
• Birmingham Crown Court Convicted the appellant of unlawful wounding in October 2010.