R v Nicola Tams

Fresh evidence should not be admitted to support an appeal against conviction where, even if accepted as credible, it is incapable of supporting an arguable inference of jury irregularity or of affecting the safety of the conviction. An investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23A is unnecessary in those circumstances.

Jurors have a collective responsibility throughout the trial to report suspected misconduct or outside interference. The absence of any such report may be relevant when assessing an unsupported allegation of irregularity.

The applicant and her co-accused were convicted in the Crown Court of robbery and wounding with intent. After the verdicts, the applicant said that a prison officer told her that a friend had served on the jury and had reported the guilty verdict.

She sought permission to appeal against conviction, admission of her account as fresh evidence, and a direction requiring the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate. The central issue was whether the post-verdict conversation could support an arguable allegation of jury irregularity and make a Commission inquiry necessary.

1. The application was refused. The court refused to admit the proposed fresh evidence, refused to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and refused permission to appeal against conviction.

2. Assuming in the applicant’s favour that her account of the conversation with the prison officer was capable of belief, it did not support an inference of jury irregularity. It indicated only that the officer had learned of the verdict after it was returned, when that information was public. It did not suggest that the officer, or a juror, had conveyed information about the applicant to the jury during the trial.

3. The court applied the guidance in Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623. From the jury’s swearing, jurors collectively bear responsibility for reporting apparent misconduct, outside interference, improper prejudice, or extraneous information. The trial judge had given the orthodox direction to report concerns, and no juror made any report. The jury had also been directed to decide the case on the evidence.

4. The only possible additional information identified was that the applicant had been remanded in custody. In the context of the evidence at trial, the court could not see why that would prejudice her or affect the verdicts. The applicant’s account was therefore incapable of affording an arguable ground of appeal.

5. Because no inquiry was necessary to determine the application, the statutory conditions for a direction under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23A were not met.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused. The court also refused to admit fresh evidence and to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23A.

• Crown Court: The applicant and her co-accused were convicted on 31 January 2024 of robbery and wounding with intent. They awaited sentence.