Olejarczyk, R. v

Where a juror has introduced extraneous material into deliberations, the Court of Appeal must investigate the material and assess its effect on the fairness and safety of the conviction. A conviction is likely to be unsafe if the jury considered adverse material to which the defendant had no proper opportunity to respond. A conviction is not automatically unsafe merely because such material was introduced after retirement.

The material must be assessed against the issues the jury had to decide. Immaterial research, which could not assist the jury on those issues, does not affect the safety of the conviction.

The applicant was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Manchester by an 11–1 majority and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 21-year minimum term.

After the verdict, the dissenting juror reported that the foreman had referred to prior publicity and suggested that the applicant might have military experience or know how to use a knife. A police investigation established that the foreman had conducted internet research about compulsory military service in Poland and communicated research to another juror. He later pleaded guilty to offences under the Juries Act 1974.

The application for leave to appeal against conviction raised whether that extraneous material rendered the murder conviction unsafe.

1. Application for leave to appeal refused. The conviction was not unsafe.

2. Investigation of jury deliberations is generally prohibited. It is permitted where extraneous material has been introduced or where the jury have wholly repudiated their oaths. Where extraneous material is established, the court must investigate it and decide whether it affected trial fairness and the safety of the conviction.

3. The introduction of material after the jury retire does not itself require a conviction to be quashed. A conviction is likely to be unsafe where the jury considered adverse material which the defendant had no, or no proper, opportunity to answer. Otherwise the appeal fails.

4. The only proved research concerned the fact that compulsory military service in Poland ended in 2008. There was no evidential basis to speculate that the foreman had conducted further research. That fact could not assist the jury on accident, self-defence, or whether the applicant intended to cause really serious harm when he injured the deceased.

5. Applying the approach in Thompson, [2010] 2 Cr App R 27, the extraneous material did not affect the safety of the conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused: [2018] EWCA Crim 788.
• Crown Court at Manchester: The applicant was convicted of murder on 22 December 2016 by an 11–1 majority verdict. On 23 December 2016 he received life imprisonment with a 21-year minimum term under section 269(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.