Hazell, R. v

An uncomfortable interaction between a juror and a person associated with a case does not, without more, establish apparent bias or make a conviction unsafe. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, equipped with the relevant background knowledge, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased.

A trial judge may take the verdict where the circumstances support the conclusion that the jury can return a true verdict according to the evidence and its oath. In sentencing, guarding a valuable heroin consignment with a loaded firearm can constitute a significant role and justify substantial consecutive sentences. A total sentence at the upper end of the range is not manifestly excessive merely for that reason.

The appellant was tried at Wolverhampton Crown Court on charges arising from the discovery of a loaded revolver, ammunition and drugs at his brother's house. He was convicted unanimously of possessing a prohibited firearm and ammunition, and later convicted unanimously of possessing heroin with intent to supply. He received an aggregate sentence of 13 years' imprisonment.

Before the verdict on the heroin count, a juror reported that a person from the public gallery had stared at him in the court reception area and made him feel uncomfortable. The trial judge declined to discharge the jury or question its members further, and took the verdict after the jury said that it had reached one.

The appeal challenged the safety of the heroin conviction on the ground of jury irregularity. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence challenged the assessment of the appellant's role and the totality of the sentence.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The court applied the apparent-bias test stated in Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357. The relevant question was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, knowing the relevant background, would see a real possibility that the jury was biased. That observer would know that the jury had complied diligently with the judge's directions, that the reported incident was limited to one juror, and that the jury had soon indicated that it had reached a verdict.
2. The trial judge did not err by taking the verdict without further questioning the jurors. He was entitled to investigate the incident through court security. Once the jury had said that it had reached a verdict on the remaining count, further enquiry of individual jurors or the whole jury was a difficult and delicate step. Having presided over the trial and observed those involved, the judge was well placed to conclude that the incident had not impaired the jury's ability to return a true verdict.
3. There was no evidence that the jury was, or might have been, biased against the appellant. The external interaction did not cause a real possibility of bias, and the unanimous verdict on the heroin count was safe.
4. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The appellant's possession of a loaded revolver and spare ammunition while guarding a valuable heroin consignment intended for onward supply properly placed him in a significant role under the sentencing guidelines. A five-year consecutive sentence for the heroin offence was justified. Although the aggregate term of 13 years was at the upper end of the appropriate range, it was not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed the appeal against conviction on count 3 and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Wolverhampton Crown Court In April 2012, convicted the appellant on counts 1 to 3 and imposed a total sentence of 13 years' imprisonment.