Morgan, R. v

An uncommunicated concern expressed by jurors does not render a conviction arguably unsafe unless the circumstances cast a real doubt on the safety of the verdict. A jury's understandable concern about a defendant's possible reaction after sharing public transport, without any approach or other improper conduct towards a juror, did not do so. The strength of the evidence and the fairness of the trial may confirm that the irregularity has not undermined the conviction.

The applicant was convicted at Portsmouth Crown Court of attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming. Shortly before returning a unanimous guilty verdict, jurors told a bailiff that they were concerned about the applicant's reaction because he had travelled on the same train as them and was said to have followed and sat opposite a female juror.

The concern was not fully communicated to the Recorder until after the verdict. The applicant sought an eight-day extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction, contending that the Recorder should have investigated the matter and reassured any concerned jurors. The central issue was whether the events created an arguable doubt about the safety of the conviction.

1. The application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

2. The court accepted the version of events most favourable to the applicant. It was unfortunate that the jurors' original concern had not been communicated to the Recorder before verdict. However, the court considered it understandable that jurors who realised that they shared public transport with the defendant should be concerned about his possible reaction to a guilty verdict, particularly in light of his conduct in court.

3. The applicant had not made any approach to a juror. His account was that, because he was short-sighted, he was unaware if he had followed or sat near a juror. The incident therefore did not disclose conduct capable of undermining the jury's deliberations or verdict.

4. The trial evidence was strong and essentially indisputable, and the summing-up was clear and fair. Taken together, those matters meant that the failure to raise the concern promptly created no arguable doubt whatsoever about the safety of the unanimous conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Registrar referred the applicant's request for an eight-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction to the Full Court. The court refused the application.
• Crown Court at Portsmouth: In July 2017, the applicant was convicted by a unanimous jury of attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming. On 8 September 2017, the Recorder imposed 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, with a 40-day rehabilitation activity requirement.