R v Saad Essa & Ors

Jury deliberations are confidential. A court may inquire into them only in the narrowest circumstances: where the jury has completely repudiated its oath to decide the case on the evidence, or where extraneous material has entered the deliberations. A post-verdict complaint requires strong and compelling evidence before the finality of the verdict is displaced. Sympathy for defendants, emotional strain, changing views, or disagreement among jurors does not itself establish either exception. Unsupported allegations of racist comments or internet research do not show that a verdict was affected by bias or extraneous material. The convictions were therefore not shown to be unsafe.

After a five-week trial at the Crown Court at Nottingham, three applicants were convicted of conspiring to supply class A and class B controlled drugs. Following unanimous guilty verdicts, two jurors contacted applicants through social media. Their messages referred to reluctance, pressure, alleged racist comments and disagreement within the jury. The applicants sought leave to appeal on grounds of jury irregularity, including possible bias, failure to follow judicial directions, lack of genuine unanimity and improper internet research. The central issue was whether the material could be investigated and admitted despite the confidentiality of jury deliberations, and whether it demonstrated that the convictions were unsafe.

Applications for leave to appeal refused. The convictions were not shown to be unsafe.

1. The confidentiality of jury deliberations is a necessary and integral part of the jury system. Inquiry is permitted only in two narrow situations: complete repudiation by the jury of its oath to try the case according to the evidence, or the introduction into deliberations of extraneous material not adduced at trial. The principle and exceptions were confirmed in R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118.
2. Where an irregularity is first alleged after the verdict, jurors are presumed to have obeyed the direction to report misconduct. The finality of the verdict should be accepted unless there is strong and compelling evidence that a narrow exception applies. The court considered the guidance in R v Thompson [2010] 2 Cr.App.R 23 and R v Baybasin [2014] 1 WLR 2112. An announced verdict is treated as the authentic expression of the jury's conclusion unless there is an overt indication to the contrary.
3. The messages related to the jury's deliberations. They were consistent with the jurors having followed the judge's directions and reached sure conclusions of guilt despite personal sympathy for the applicants. There was no basis for finding a complete repudiation of the jury oath. Alleged internet research and pressure of time were speculative, and the former was contradicted by the female juror's police interview.
4. If racist views had been expressed, that conduct was wrong. However, there was no basis for thinking that actual or apparent bias affected the verdicts. The female juror's account could reflect personal dislike of another juror rather than proof that the verdicts were reached on an improper basis. No juror questioned the verdicts when announced, and the foreman himself announced them.
5. As explained in R v James [2022] EWCA Crim 928, jury deliberations may involve give-and-take and changing initial views. Emotional strain or later regret about returning guilty verdicts does not, without more, justify an inquiry. The evidence was inadmissible under the confidentiality principle, and each application for leave failed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applications for leave to appeal were referred to the full court and refused. The court held that the convictions were not unsafe: [2023] EWCA Crim 608.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: Following a five-week trial before His Honour Judge Godsmark KC and a jury, the applicants were convicted of two conspiracies to supply controlled drugs and later sentenced to imprisonment.