REGINA v MATEUSZ MACIEJEWSKI

A complaint by jurors during a criminal trial does not automatically require the jury’s discharge or severance of a defendant’s trial. Where a possible jury irregularity arises, the judge’s primary concern is its effect on the fairness of the trial and whether the jury can decide the case on the evidence alone.

The judge may investigate the concern, remove its practical cause, obtain assurances from the affected jurors and give suitable directions. In the absence of a real basis to doubt those assurances or to find prejudice, the judge may properly allow the trial to continue.

The applicant was convicted of murder at Derby Crown Court and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years. He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after refusal by the single judge.

During the Covid-19 trial, two jurors complained that, because of their proximity to the dock, the applicant’s looking in their direction made them feel intimidated and uncomfortable. The trial judge made enquiries, changed the seating arrangements, obtained assurances from the two jurors and then from the whole jury, and refused applications to discharge some or all of the jury or to sever the applicant’s trial.

The central issue was whether that ruling deprived the applicant of a fair trial.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. There was no arguable basis for challenging the safety of the conviction.

2. When the jurors’ note raised a possible jury irregularity, the judge acted correctly. Consistently with Criminal Practice Direction VI (Trial) 26M.1 to 26M.26, her principal concern was the impact on the trial. She isolated the two jurors, heard submissions, obtained further information, altered the courtroom arrangements and addressed whether the jurors could decide solely on the evidence.

3. The judge was entitled to conclude that the concern arose from the applicant’s close physical proximity to the two jurors, rather than from conduct creating actual prejudice. The revised seating arrangement removed that source of discomfort. The word “intimidating” had to be read with the jurors’ fuller explanation that frequent looking in their direction made them uncomfortable; neither said that they could not concentrate, feared adverse consequences, or felt pressure to reach a particular verdict.

4. Both affected jurors, and subsequently all twelve jurors, confirmed that they could remain faithful to their oath or affirmation and decide the case on the evidence. There was no basis to doubt those assurances. The court also rejected the claims that the jurors had breached the judge’s earlier instructions, or that juror 12 had given inconsistent accounts about a passing comment to an usher.

5. Accordingly, it was not arguable that any juror was prejudiced against the applicant, or that fairness required the discharge of two or all jurors, or a separate trial. The strength of the prosecution case provided further support for the conclusion that the conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused in [2022] EWCA Crim 151.

• Crown Court at Derby: the applicant was convicted of murder on 17 May 2021 and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years.