GP, R. v

A jury must be free to deliberate without pressure to reach a verdict. A trial judge must not create pressure arising from time, inconvenience or expense.

A challenge to conviction based on alleged pressure must be assessed in its full context. Clear directions that the jury may take all necessary time, a genuine opportunity for further deliberation, and conduct showing careful consideration can demonstrate that the verdicts are safe. Speculation about external circumstances, without an actual indication that jurors were pressured or unable to deliberate fairly, does not establish unfairness.

The applicant was tried at Newport Crown Court for six historic counts of indecent assault against two nieces. The jury acquitted him on one count and convicted him on five. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence.

He applied for leave to appeal against conviction. His sole ground was that the developing Covid-19 emergency may have caused the jury to feel pressured to return verdicts on the Friday before the national lockdown. The court considered the timing of the summing-up, the judge’s directions, the jury’s deliberations and the mixed verdicts.

Decision

1. Leave to appeal was refused. The court was not remotely persuaded that the convictions were unsafe or that the trial had been unfair.
2. A jury must be free to deliberate without pressure to reach any particular verdict. However, the relevant question was whether the circumstances of this trial created such pressure, rather than whether the pandemic was generally capable of causing concern.
3. The judge repeatedly made clear that the jury were under no pressure of time and could have further time if required. The jury had a full day available for deliberation, retired for more than four hours, sought no assistance and returned mixed verdicts. Those matters strongly demonstrated conscientious and careful consideration.
4. It was proper to complete the summing-up on the Thursday. The trial was short, the jury left before 5 pm, and it was advantageous for the defendant’s evidence to be reviewed in the same sitting as the remainder of the evidence. The judge’s minor self-corrected slips did not indicate pressure or create a risk of unfairness.
5. The suggestion that the jury might have felt compelled to finish before the following week was speculative. No juror expressed such a concern, and neither advocate raised a contemporaneous objection to the jury retiring. The convictions therefore remained safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On an application for leave to appeal against conviction, the Full Court refused leave: [2020] EWCA Crim 1056.
• Newport Crown Court. The applicant was convicted on five of six counts of indecent assault and acquitted on one count. He was subsequently sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence.