Romani v R.

A trial judge may refuse severance where the counts are properly joined and suitable directions enable the defendant to receive a fair trial. Evidence relevant to one group of counts does not itself require severance merely because it may prejudice the defence to another group.

Jurors’ expressed unease about encountering defendants outside court does not, without more, demonstrate bias or that they will decide the case on extraneous matters. A practical measure to keep jurors and defendants apart may adequately address that concern; discharge of the jury is not required unless the circumstances show a real threat to the fairness of the trial.

Romani v R. was a renewed application for leave to appeal against convictions at the Crown Court at Bradford for two conspiracies to possess Class A drugs with intent to supply and two counts of possessing criminal property.

The prosecution relied on telephone and meeting-place evidence for the conspiracy counts, and on cash found at the applicant’s home with abnormal drug contamination for the criminal-property counts. The applicant pursued two grounds: that the criminal-property counts should have been severed from the conspiracy counts, and that the jury should have been discharged after several jurors expressed concern about encountering defendants while entering and leaving the court building.

A further suggested complaint about a restaurant incident was unsupported by the transcript obtained after the hearing.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court found no arguable substance in either pursued ground.

2. The trial judge had properly exercised his discretion to refuse severance. The conspiracy counts and criminal-property counts had not been misjoined. The court accepted that appropriate directions enabled the applicant to have a fair trial on the indictment as framed, despite the asserted prejudicial effect of evidence on the cash counts. Once severance was properly refused, the contention that this evidence should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 had no coherent basis.

3. The jurors’ notes showed concern about meeting defendants outside the building and a wish to be kept separate. They did not show that jurors had formed views from matters outside the evidence, or that they bore bias or hostility towards the defendants. The judge’s direction that defendants remain in court for a short period after the jury left was a sensible response. There was no need to discharge the jury.

4. The transcript also showed that the judge’s limited inquiry about a fish-and-chip restaurant concerned whether jurors had overheard offensive remarks, not an allegation that a juror had followed the applicant or his legal team. The court found no error in that handling.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Romani v R., [2011] EWCA Crim 183, the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Bradford: The applicant was convicted after trial before His Honour Judge McCallum on 9 February 2010.