R v Hassan Tasleem & Anor

Jury deliberations are confidential and evidence about them is inadmissible, subject only to narrow exceptions. These concern a complete repudiation of the jury’s oath and the introduction of extraneous material into deliberations. A similarly circumspect approach applies to alleged premature expressions of opinion outside the jury room. An investigation under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 should be directed only where the statutory conditions are met and the investigation is likely to resolve a matter relevant to the application or appeal. An isolated and imprecise report of a juror’s comment will not suffice where the circumstances do not provide a realistic basis for concluding that the verdicts were reached improperly.

Following a lengthy Crown Court trial, Hassan Tasleem and Gurdeep Singh Sandhu were convicted of murder, possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, and doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. They sought extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction after a report that a juror had told a member of the deceased’s family that only the alleged shooter and driver would be convicted.

The applications were referred to the full court. The central issues were whether the alleged conversation justified directing the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate under section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and, if not, whether there was any arguable ground of appeal.

Applications refused. The court declined to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and refused the applications for extensions of time. The applications for leave to appeal against conviction therefore fell away.

1. Section 23A(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits a direction to investigate only where the matter is relevant to the appeal or application, ought if possible to be resolved before determination, an investigation is likely to enable the court to resolve it, and the court cannot resolve it without such an investigation.
2. The confidentiality of jury discussions is a long-established principle. As confirmed in R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118, the narrow exceptions are a complete repudiation of the jury’s oath and the introduction of extraneous material into deliberations. Those principles were reiterated in R v Thompson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1623 and later authorities.
3. A similarly circumspect approach applies to an alleged conversation by a juror before formal retirement. Even assuming the report was truthful, it could represent one juror’s provisional expectation after the evidence and speeches had concluded. It did not reliably establish that all jurors had reached final decisions weeks earlier, or that the verdicts were affected by bias or reached otherwise than in accordance with the evidence and the judge’s directions.
4. The court relied on the delayed reporting of the allegation, its lack of detail, the collective responsibility of jurors, and the jury’s mixed verdicts, inability to reach verdicts on particular counts, and time spent deliberating.
5. There was consequently no justification for directing a Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation. Since no other ground of appeal was suggested, an extension of time would serve no purpose because an appeal could not succeed. The court gave leave for the judgment to be cited.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): R v Hassan Tasleem & Anor [2024] EWCA Crim 956. The court refused extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. The applications for leave therefore fell away.
2. Crown Court at Wolverhampton, sitting at Loughborough: the applicants were convicted on 19 January 2023 and sentenced to life imprisonment with minimum terms of 30 years, less time spent on remand.