R v AZT

A Watson direction should be exceptional. It should ordinarily be given only as a last resort after a prolonged jury retirement and after the majority-verdict direction. It must not place jurors under pressure to compromise their oaths. A judge considering such a direction must address the matter in open court with counsel and the defendant present; a private, unrecorded discussion is a material irregularity. The irregularity does not automatically make convictions unsafe. The appellate court must assess whether the direction created a significant risk of pressure and whether it affected the verdicts, having regard to the particular facts.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Teesside of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, false imprisonment and rape. He appealed against conviction after the trial judge gave a majority-verdict direction and later gave a Watson direction during the jury’s deliberations. The discussion about that direction took place privately in the judge’s room and was not recorded. The central issues were whether the procedure and direction were improper and, if so, whether the convictions were unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the trial judge should not have considered the propriety of a Watson direction in a private meeting with counsel. The issue should have been raised in the absence of the jury, in open court, with counsel and the appellant present. The failure to follow that procedure was a material irregularity.
2. The guidance in R v Arthur [2013] EWCA Crim 1852 required consideration of whether the words used were appropriate in the circumstances and whether they created a significant risk that jurors might feel pressured to compromise their oaths. A Watson direction is generally appropriate only as a last resort after a prolonged retirement. It should not ordinarily be given before or at the time of the majority-verdict direction.
3. The direction in the present case was inappropriate. The jury was not under time pressure and had not been deliberating for a prolonged period. Nevertheless, the irregularity did not automatically make the convictions unsafe. The court had to determine whether the verdicts were in fact unsafe, having regard to the likely effect of the direction.
4. The jury’s notes showed unanimity on the counts concerning C2 and a sufficient majority on the count concerning C1 before the direction was given. The verdicts were consistent with those earlier indications, and there was no reason to suppose that the direction affected the jury’s thinking. The convictions were therefore safe despite the material irregularity.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 25 October 2023, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that material irregularities had occurred but that the convictions were safe.
2. Crown Court at Teesside: The appellant was convicted on 19 May 2021 and sentenced on 19 July to 10 years’ imprisonment, consecutive to a sentence already being served.