REGINA v JHOSMARK VANEGAS

An apparently clear jury verdict returned in open court cannot ordinarily be impeached by evidence about the jury’s deliberations or reasoning. The court may exceptionally investigate whether the verdict was mistaken, ambiguous, or did not represent the jury’s true decision. It must not, however, investigate whether the jury’s reasoning was logically consistent with its assessment of the evidence or with the judge’s directions.

Where unclear comments from a juror do not disclose a defect in the verdict, and the jury, after an adequate reminder of the critical issues, unanimously confirms a guilty verdict, those comments do not make the conviction unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of blackmail and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that he had knowingly assisted a co-accused to blackmail a work colleague.

After the verdict, the jury foreman made unclear comments to the usher suggesting that the evidence was weak and that the appellant might have been an unwilling or unwitting participant. The trial judge obtained a further unanimous written confirmation that the appellant was guilty and knowingly involved.

The appeal challenged the safety of the conviction. The central issue was whether the foreman’s comments permitted or required an investigation into the jury’s reasoning, or showed that the verdict was unsafe.

1. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The conviction was safe and stood.

2. The general rule, derived from Wooller 171 E.R. 589 and confirmed by Lalchan Nanan v The State Respondent [1986] AC 860, prevents the court from receiving evidence to rebut the presumption that an unprotested verdict given in the sight and hearing of the jury is the jury’s verdict.

3. There are limited exceptions. A court may clarify an ambiguous verdict, or investigate and correct a verdict which was mistakenly delivered and did not represent the jury’s true decision. The authorities, including R v Andrews (1986) 82 Cr App R 148 and R v Charnley [2007] 2 Cr App R(S) 33, concerned whether the verdict accorded with the law or truly represented the jury’s view.

4. The foreman’s comments did not disclose a defect in this verdict. It was unclear whether they had been made in the presence of the other jurors, whether they reflected the jury’s reasoning, or whether they concerned a request for leniency. At their highest, they suggested that the jury might have misunderstood or disregarded the directions. That was an inquiry into jury reasoning, which the court could not undertake.

5. The court considered that it would have been preferable for the foreman to raise any concern directly before the court, or for the jury to provide it in writing. The judge’s further direction nevertheless adequately addressed the only potentially relevant questions: whether the jury could be sure despite allegedly weak evidence, and whether the appellant was knowingly involved despite the reference to unwitting involvement. The jury then unanimously confirmed both guilt and knowing involvement.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2014] EWCA Crim 2911, granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal.
• Central Criminal Court: On 13 October 2014, Mr Recorder Hardy QC convicted the appellant of blackmail. On 14 October 2014, he imposed a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.