Ibbtsam Ul Hamid, R v

An apparently regular unanimous jury verdict should be respected. Enquiries into private jury deliberations are permissible only in the most exceptional circumstances, because the finality and confidentiality of the jury process are fundamental.

The relevant question is whether every juror assented when the verdict was returned. A juror’s later doubts, uncertainty, or change of heart do not invalidate a verdict where the juror had indicated assent. A verdict may be unsafe where compelling evidence establishes that it was not unanimous when returned, but equivocal post-verdict reservations do not establish a material irregularity.

The appellants were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cheat the Revenue through fraudulent VAT repayment claims. Before any majority-verdict direction, the foreman returned verdicts stated to be unanimous. The appellants were convicted, while two co-accused were acquitted.

Shortly after the jury had been discharged, three jurors raised concerns. A questionnaire subsequently administered through the Criminal Cases Review Commission produced unequivocal confirmation of unanimity from eight jurors, while the remaining material was equivocal or unavailable. The appeals challenged the validity and safety of the convictions on the ground that the purportedly unanimous verdicts were irregular.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the convictions were safe and that the verdicts had been properly entered as unanimous verdicts.
2. Enquiries into how a jury reached its verdict are exceptional. The confidentiality of jury deliberations is integral to the jury system. A complaint first made after verdict is ordinarily a strong indication against investigation unless there is other compelling evidence. The court applied the caution expressed in R v Baybasin and Others [2014] 1 Cr App R 19.
3. The decisive issue was whether the jurors had assented when the verdicts were delivered. A later change of heart, or a later assertion that a juror had been unsure but had gone with the majority, was irrelevant if the juror had indicated assent in the jury room. Feeling pressure was not equivalent to having been subjected to undue pressure.
4. The evidence did not establish any material irregularity. The post-verdict accounts of Jurors A and B were equivocal. Juror C’s note was unsupported and did not show that disagreement had been expressed during deliberations. Those matters were outweighed by the clear confirmation from eight jurors, the absence of any relevant jury note during deliberations, the clear written and oral unanimity direction, the jury’s note that it had reached verdicts, and the absence of dissent when each verdict was confirmed in open court.
5. R v Charnley [2007] 2 Cr App R 33 was distinguishable. In that case, compelling evidence had established that purported unanimous verdicts were returned while the jury remained divided. No comparable evidence existed here.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). By [2016] EWCA Crim 449, the court dismissed the appellants’ challenges to the safety and validity of their convictions.
• Birmingham Crown Court. The jury convicted both appellants of conspiracy to cheat the Revenue after verdicts were returned as unanimous.