R v Mohammed Hanif & Ors

A properly investigated concern raised by a juror does not itself establish a real possibility of bias or require discharge of the jury. Where the concern is unsubstantiated, a clear judicial reassurance and direction to put the matter aside may be sufficient.

Verdicts on different counts are not inconsistent merely because they differ. They may reflect the jury’s separate assessment of materially different evidence, including differing identification evidence and uncertainty as to whether an alleged act occurred.

A possible tactical disadvantage, vigorous cross-examination, or a potential cut-throat defence does not without more make a joint trial unfair. The power to order loss of time remains discretionary and should be exercised in the context of the grounds advanced on renewal.

Three applicants sought renewed permission to appeal against convictions for rape following a trial at Leeds Crown Court. Their applications had been refused by the single judge.

Hanif challenged the trial judge’s handling of a juror’s note concerning an apparent interaction between him and a court security officer. Nasser contended that his conviction on one count was inconsistent with acquittals on two others. Ali advanced alleged inconsistency of verdicts, inadequate identification evidence, unfairness from the joint trial, and prejudice arising from the juror’s note.

The court also considered whether to make loss of time orders against any applicant.

1. The renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction were refused. None of the convictions was rendered unsafe.

2. Hanif’s complaint concerning the juror’s note failed. The note raised a concern rather than a substantiated allegation of impropriety. The judge caused the matter to be investigated through CCTV evidence, which disclosed no untoward interaction. On that basis, the judge was entitled to reassure the jury and direct it to put the matter out of mind. There was no real possibility of bias, no jury irregularity, and no arguable need to question the juror further or discharge the jury. The response accorded with the applicable procedural guidance and the relevant authority, including R v Ali [2019] EWCA Crim 1527.

3. Nasser’s conviction on count 25 was not inconsistent with his acquittals on counts 18 and 19. The latter counts concerned a different period and evidence which could leave the jury unsure of identity. Count 25 was supported by separate identification material, and its central issue was whether the alleged incident had occurred. The different verdicts showed a careful count-by-count assessment rather than inconsistency.

4. Ali’s conviction on count 27 was likewise compatible with his acquittal on count 26. The evidence and possible uncertainty on the two counts differed. There had been no application to sever, and neither the prospect of challenging cross-examination nor a possible cut-throat defence established unfairness. No prejudice arose from the juror’s note or otherwise.

5. No loss of time order was made. Although such orders may discourage unmeritorious applications that waste court resources, these renewals substantially repeated grounds already considered by the single judge and did not justify penalising the applicants.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for permission to appeal against conviction refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 145.

2. Single judge: applications for permission to appeal against conviction refused.

3. Crown Court at Leeds: the applicants were convicted of rape after trial and sentenced on 26 April 2024.