Edgar & Ors, R. v

A criminal conviction is unsafe if the accused has been denied a fair trial, regardless of the apparent strength of the prosecution case. Apparent juror bias arises where a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias. One biased juror taints the whole jury.

A juror’s undisclosed close connection with a police officer supporting the victim’s family, combined with contact during the trial and concern about a not-guilty verdict, established objective bias. The Court of Appeal must determine safety for itself, even where the Crown does not seek to uphold the convictions.

The three appellants were convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Cardiff on 20 December 2016. Their separate appeals against sentence had already succeeded. They appealed their convictions with leave of the single judge.

After the trial, information emerged that a juror was in a close relationship with the son of a police officer who was acting as family liaison officer for the deceased’s family. The officer and juror had exchanged messages before and during the trial. The messages showed that both knew of their respective connections with the case, but neither disclosed them to the court.

The central issue was whether the fresh evidence established actual or apparent bias sufficient to render the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeals allowed. The convictions were quashed because the trial was fatally compromised by apparent juror bias. A fair trial is indispensable. The apparent strength of the prosecution evidence could not cure an unfair trial.

2. The Court received the police inquiry material as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It was reliable, bore directly on the integrity of the trial, and its reception was required in the interests of justice.

3. Applying the apparent-bias approach in In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) [2001] 1 WLR 700 and Porter v Magill v Weeks [2001] UKHL 67, the question was whether a fair-minded and informed observer would see a real possibility or danger that the juror was biased. A single biased juror was sufficient to taint the jury.

4. That test was plainly met. The juror had a close relationship with an officer supporting the deceased’s family, knew that officer was connected with the case, regularly saw the deceased’s sister, and expressed concern about the consequences of a verdict unfavourable to the family. She did not disclose those matters despite repeated opportunities. The juror and officer also remained in contact during the trial and had been willing to give misleading or incomplete information to the court for personal convenience.

5. Following R v McIlkenny & Ors [1991] 93 Cr App R 287, the safety of the convictions remained for the Court to determine, notwithstanding the Crown’s concession. The Court ordered a retrial on fresh murder indictments, directed re-arraignment within two months, and left venue to the presiding judge for the Wales circuit. The appellants were to remain in custody. Reporting was restricted under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 until the retrial concluded.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 1857, the court allowed the conviction appeals, quashed the convictions, and ordered retrials. It had previously allowed appeals against the length of sentence in each case; further details were not stated.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: The appellants were convicted of murder on 20 December 2016 and subsequently sentenced.