R v Andrei Rotaru

Where jurors report discomfort or intimidation arising from contact with defendants outside court, the trial judge should adopt a measured, practical and problem-solving response. If the notes are self-explanatory, the judge may reassure the jury, prevent further contact and invite further concerns without conducting a wider inquiry into prejudice or predetermination. A failure to investigate matters requiring no further clarification will not ordinarily make convictions unsafe. An application to extend time for a renewed appeal may be refused where the proposed ground is unarguable and the cumulative delay is excessive, even if the applicant has explained the individual stages of delay.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Isleworth on 11 May 2021 of ten counts of rape and sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment. He sought leave to appeal against conviction on a new ground concerning two jury notes about encounters with the defendants outside court. The notes expressed discomfort, intimidation and concern about possible revenge, and referred to the defendants as a group or gang.

The applicant also sought a 445-day extension of time to renew his application for leave and permission to vary his notice of appeal. The central issue was whether the trial judge had been required to investigate whether any juror had prejudged the case, held prejudicial views, misunderstood the reference to a group or gang, or felt unable to continue fairly.

1. Applications refused. The court refused leave to appeal against conviction, the 445-day extension of time and permission to vary the notice of appeal. The proposed ground was not reasonably arguable and the convictions were not shown to be unsafe.
2. The jury notes were self-explanatory. They described discomfort caused by close encounters with the defendants outside court and concern about possible retaliation. They did not require an inquiry into whether the jurors had prejudged the case, possessed disqualifying prejudice or were unable to continue.
3. The trial judge adopted the correct practical response. She apologised, reassured the jury that there was no real reason for concern, arranged staggered arrival and departure times, prevented the defendants from being outside during lunch and invited further notes if any concern continued. The response was measured, suitably low key and effective.
4. Further investigation was neither necessary nor advisable. The judge was entitled to address the immediate problem and remove the risk of further contact, rather than investigate speculative possibilities which were not raised by the notes. The absence of any further note during the remaining three weeks of the trial supported the conclusion that the issue had been dealt with effectively.
5. Although the applicant’s solicitors had been reasonably diligent and had explained each stage of the delay, the cumulative delay of 445 days was excessive and prolonged the uncertainty and trauma for the complainant. In any event, the proposed ground lacked merit, so there was no good reason to extend time.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 496, the court refused leave to appeal against conviction, refused the application for a 445-day extension of time and refused permission to vary the notice of appeal.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: The applicant was convicted on 11 May 2021 and sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment.