R v Stefon Francis Winter

A jury’s request for information outside the evidence does not, without more, show that jurors have speculated, conducted improper research, or will disobey judicial directions. The court ordinarily proceeds on the basis that jurors obey clear directions and report misconduct by fellow jurors.

An exceptional post-verdict inquiry should not be directed merely because questions might be thought capable of indicating an impermissible line of reasoning. It requires other strong and compelling evidence casting arguable doubt on the safety of the conviction. Where the questions are capable of innocent explanation and the judge has given appropriate directions, an investigation and leave to appeal may properly be refused.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Swindon of historic sexual offences against a child, referred to as C. The prosecution relied principally on C’s and her mother’s evidence. The defence denied that the offences occurred and challenged the reliability of C’s accounts.

During retirement, the jury asked questions about, among other matters, an uncalled witness, previous convictions, compensation, the recording of the applicant’s 1995 interview, and why the case had been reopened. The judge reminded them to decide the case only on the evidence and not to speculate.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction. He contended that the questions justified an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission into possible internet research and awareness of his previous convictions. The central issue was whether the jury note provided a sufficient basis to order that exceptional investigation.

1. The application for a direction to investigate and the application for leave to appeal against conviction were refused. The jury’s questions were requests for information. They were not assertions that any juror had obtained information outside the trial or formed an impermissible view.

2. Jurors commonly lack experience of Crown Court procedure and may ask about evidence not called, matters they regard as potentially relevant, or factual gaps in the case. Such questions do not themselves establish that the jury has speculated or disregarded directions. The judge’s directions that the evidence was closed and that speculation was forbidden were appropriate.

3. Each question was capable of an innocent explanation. In particular, it was unsurprising that jurors asked about A, who was said to have been present during one alleged incident. The question about previous convictions did not necessarily concern the applicant, and did not indicate prior research. The question about a video recording reflected a possible misunderstanding of the agreed facts.

4. The court was entitled to proceed, absent evidence to the contrary, on the basis that jurors obey judicial directions. Applying R v Frizell and Bowden [2024] EWCA Crim 1108, post-verdict inquiries should not be ordered unless there is other strong and compelling evidence. Nothing before the court cast arguable doubt on the safety of the convictions or justified the exceptional exercise of the power under section 23 A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused a direction for an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and refused leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Swindon: The applicant was convicted by a jury of historic sexual offences against a child.