Dhaliwal & Ors v R.

Unauthorised internet research by a juror is a serious irregularity, but it does not itself require discharge of the whole jury or make convictions unsafe. The overriding consideration is fairness. Apparent bias is assessed objectively by asking whether a fair-minded and independent observer, considering the relevant facts, would see a real possibility of bias.

The court must act on a firm evidential basis, not speculation. It must assess what information was obtained and communicated, its likely effect on the issues, the jury directions, and whether the remaining jurors could fairly continue. A properly managed irregularity which cannot realistically affect the verdicts will not undermine their safety.

Eight appellants challenged convictions following a 54-day trial at Leeds Crown Court concerning serious sexual offences against vulnerable girls. During the jury's retirement, one juror disclosed that he had conducted internet research into Raj Singh Barsran and had told other jurors that Barsran had previously been imprisoned for assault. The juror was discharged, but the trial judge refused to discharge the remaining jury generally or from returning verdicts against Barsran.

A subsequent police investigation established that the juror had searched specifically for Barsran's name and had not been frank about the extent of his conduct. All appellants appealed on the resulting jury irregularity. Amere Singh Dhaliwal also appealed his life sentence with an 18-year minimum term.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The juror's internet research was a grave breach of duty and a criminal offence. Nevertheless, the governing question was whether the irregularity caused unfairness or a perception of unfairness such that the convictions were unsafe.

2. The court applied the objective apparent-bias test in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67. The question was whether a fair-minded and independent observer, considering the relevant facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility or risk of bias. The court also applied R v McDonnell [2010] EWCA Crim 2352: unauthorised research does not automatically require discharge of the entire jury. A court must have a firm basis, rather than speculation, for concluding that extraneous material affected the verdicts.

3. The trial judge had been entitled not to discharge the juror when he first raised stress-related concerns. He conducted a proper enquiry and obtained assurances capable, at that stage, of excluding objectively justified doubts about impartiality.

4. On the later irregularity, there was no evidence or firm basis for inferring that the juror had obtained or disclosed improper information beyond Barsran's previous imprisonment for assault. The timing showed that the research followed the jury's curiosity about why Barsran had been in prison. Unlike R v KK [2019] EWCA Crim 1634, the jury already knew from Barsran's evidence that he had been imprisoned. Knowledge that the offence was assault neither suggested sexual offending nor bore materially on the central issue of consent on the rape count.

5. The court accepted that the disclosure had to be assessed against the earlier concerns about the juror. Even so, the remaining eleven jurors' verdicts were safe. The disclosure was curtailed, the jury had clear written directions not to speculate, and the evidence indicated that decisions on Barsran's counts had been reached before it was made. It could not realistically have prejudiced the other appellants. The mixed verdicts and acquittals also demonstrated conscientious and discerning deliberation.

6. Dhaliwal's appeal against sentence was dismissed. The judge had overwhelming material supporting the finding of dangerousness under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A life sentence was necessary for public protection and independently justified by the exceptional gravity and totality of his offending. The notional determinate term of 36 years was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, and no improper disparity arose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Dhaliwal & Ors v R. [2020] EWCA Crim 843, the court dismissed all eight appeals against conviction and dismissed Dhaliwal's appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Leeds: Following a 54-day trial before HHJ Marson QC, eight defendants were convicted of serious sexual offences. Dhaliwal received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 18 years.