R v Huseyin Cepe

In a jury-irregularity case, a juror's choice to say little or nothing during deliberations is not, by itself, a ground for discharge. The relevant question is whether the juror can follow the judge's directions, participate to the extent desired and try the case fairly on the evidence. Under Criminal Practice Direction 2023, discharge is justified where there is an evident need, including a real concern about a juror's ability to perform the role, a risk of disrupting other jurors or a real possibility of bias assessed by a fair-minded and informed observer. After one juror is discharged, the judge may rely on the remaining jurors' express confirmation of their oaths unless evidence shows that deliberations have been compromised. A comment about a defendant's body language does not, without more, establish bias. Appeal dismissed.

The applicant was tried at the Crown Court at Wood Green before Recorder Lewis KC and a jury on charges including controlling or coercive behaviour, assault, sexual offences and criminal damage. He pleaded guilty to criminal damage and was convicted of the other counts except false imprisonment, of which he was acquitted. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.

During deliberations, J7 alleged that J10 would not engage with the jury and had expressed views suggesting gender bias and an unwillingness to assess the evidence. J10 made counter-allegations of bullying, hostility, racial and religious bias. The judge isolated and questioned the jurors, discharged J10, investigated comments attributed to J5, and retained J5 and the remaining jurors after obtaining their confirmations that they could follow their oaths. The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction, arguing that J5 and the whole jury should also have been discharged.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

1. Governing approach. The trial judge correctly focused on the impact of the alleged jury irregularity on the trial, as required by Criminal Practice Direction 2023 Part 8.7. She followed the stepped procedure for investigating the allegations. The Court of Appeal noted that she had applied the principles stated in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, R v Gynane [2020] EWCA Crim 1348 at [40], and R v Skeete [2022] EWCA Crim 1511 at [25]. Discharge required an evident need or necessity. Apparent bias was assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would consider that there was a real possibility of bias.
2. J10. A juror is not required to speak during deliberations. A juror may say little or nothing if able to participate to the extent desired, comply with the judge's directions and try the case fairly on the evidence. Here, however, J10's conduct during the trial, his refusal to engage in ongoing discussions, the reported comments and the risk that his behaviour would distract other jurors gave the judge a proper basis to conclude that discharge was necessary. The decision to discharge him could not be criticised.
3. The remaining jury. The discharge of J10 did not establish that the other jurors would be inhibited from challenging the prosecution case. In the absence of evidence that deliberations had been compromised, the judge was entitled to rely on their express confirmation that they could remain faithful to their oaths. Their later question about false imprisonment and acquittal on that count were also inconsistent with any chilling effect.
4. J5. A juror's view about a defendant's body language is not, without more, evidence of conscious or unconscious bias. J5's explanation of the alleged generalisation about Turkish men, together with the investigation and his confirmation that he could try the case fairly, meant that there was no real risk of bias requiring discharge.

The judge's decisions were properly open to her and the convictions were safe: [2025] EWCA Crim 196.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 196.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — Following a jury trial before Recorder Lewis KC, the applicant was convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, sexual assault, assault by penetration, rape and criminal damage. He had pleaded guilty to criminal damage and was acquitted of false imprisonment. He was sentenced to six years' imprisonment.