Gul, R v

A conviction is not unsafe merely because a discharged juror has raised concerns connected with the defendant’s community, where the remaining jurors had already reached the same verdict before hearing those concerns. The court may properly ask whether the jury can continue on the evidence alone. A prompt affirmative answer, followed by a unanimous verdict, may demonstrate that the information did not affect the safety of the conviction.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Wood Green of failing to give a satisfactory explanation to the Official Receiver, contrary to sections 354(3) and 350(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The conviction followed a retrial, since at an earlier trial the jury had been unable to agree on this count.

During deliberations at the retrial, a juror expressed concern for personal safety because of shared community and cultural connections with the defendants and witnesses. The judge discharged that juror. The remaining jury reported that it had already reached the same majority view before receiving that information, confirmed that it could decide the case on the evidence, and shortly afterwards returned a unanimous guilty verdict. The appeal challenged the safety of that conviction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe.
2. The discharged juror’s concern did not undermine the deliberations of the remaining jurors. Before that juror disclosed the concern, the jury had already reached an 11 to 1 majority in favour of conviction. The sole dissenting juror was plainly the juror later discharged.
3. After the disclosure, the remaining jurors stated that their verdict and votes remained unchanged. The judge then asked whether they could continue to deliberate on the evidence while excluding the concerns communicated by the discharged juror. They answered affirmatively and immediately thereafter reported a unanimous verdict.
4. The court held that the remaining jurors’ reference to feeling contaminated, and their concerns about what they had heard, could not affect the conviction’s safety in those circumstances. The precise reason for that reaction was immaterial. The contemporaneous notes showed that the information had not caused the verdict in favour of conviction and that the jury could properly continue its deliberations on the evidence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction in [2012] EWCA Crim 259.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: on 12 April 2011, the appellant was convicted after a retrial. At an earlier trial, the jury had convicted him on a similar count but could not agree on this count.