R v L (Non-discharge of Juror and Jury)

A juror is not disqualified merely because personal experience resembles allegations at trial. The relevant question is whether there is an evident need for discharge because the juror displays actual or apparent bias, assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would see a real possibility or danger of jury bias. The judge may take a juror’s express assurance that they can follow their oath and decide on the evidence at face value where the circumstances support that conclusion. The same approach applies to the remaining jurors. Direct questioning and reliable affirmative answers may show that the trial can continue, even if one juror answers negatively and is discharged.

The appellant appealed against his conviction at Chelmsford Crown Court on 8 March 2023 on 13 counts of sexual offending against children. During the defence closing speech, a juror disclosed personal experience of similar abuse and said that she found it difficult to hear the complainants described as lying.

The trial judge questioned the juror and the other jurors. He discharged a different juror who answered negatively when asked whether he could decide the case solely on the evidence. The original juror and the other ten jurors remained. The appeal concerned whether the original juror should also have been discharged and whether the whole jury should have been discharged.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The conviction was safe.
2. The applicable test was the evident-need test stated in R v Gynane [2020] EWCA Crim 1348. A juror may be discharged where there is an evident need, which may arise from actual or apparent bias. The judge must make a factual assessment in the circumstances of the case. The question is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger that the jury would be biased. This formulation was further explained in R v Skeete [2022] EWCA Crim 1511, drawing on Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67.
3. Jurors are entitled to bring their life experiences into the jury box. They are not disqualified merely because those experiences resemble matters raised by the evidence. The critical question was whether the juror could remain true to her oath and return a verdict according to the evidence. The judge was entitled to take her repeated assurance at face value. A fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that she understood her responsibility and could decide the case properly.
4. The judge was also entitled to take the affirmative answers of the remaining jurors at face value. The eleven jurors who remained had confirmed that they could comply with their oaths and decide the case only on the evidence. The discharge of the juror who answered negatively did not require discharge of the whole jury.
5. The court doubted that the juror’s distress was a jury irregularity of the type addressed by Part 6, paragraph 26M of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Nevertheless, the judge’s enquiries, questioning and directions were careful, considered and consistent with the rule’s guidance. They ensured that the trial remained fair.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction and held that the conviction was safe.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: convicted the appellant on 8 March 2023 after a trial concerning 13 counts of sexual offending against children.