R v AJF

A post-verdict complaint of jury irregularity does not ordinarily permit examination of jury deliberations. The confidentiality of deliberations and the finality of verdicts are subject only to narrow exceptions, including a complete repudiation of the jury’s oath or affirmation, or the receipt and consideration of non-evidential material. Potential jury bias may justify inquiry in an appropriate case.

An investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission into a jury irregularity first raised after verdict is exceptional. A further inquiry will not be ordered merely to re-test jurors’ answers or to pursue speculative checks. Cogent grounds are required to show that a faithfully conducted investigation has failed to assist on a matter relevant to the appeal.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Newport of two historic rapes of a child. He sought leave to appeal against conviction.

After the trial, a juror sent the court a note alleging, among other matters, that another juror may have disliked the applicant because he was her local councillor. At an earlier directions hearing, the Court of Appeal declined to investigate allegations concerning deliberations and premature conclusions, but directed the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate the alleged bias.

The Commission’s report did not support any allegation of bias. The applicant then pursued only the jury-note ground and requested a further, wider investigation, including checks against planning and electoral records. The central issue was whether any further inquiry was justified and whether the existing material disclosed an arguable basis for treating the convictions as unsafe.

1. The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The applicant’s sole remaining ground depended on the post-trial juror’s note. The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s investigation provided no support for an allegation that any juror was biased or had received extraneous information affecting the verdict.
2. The court proceeded on the established principle in R v Mirza [2004] UKHL 2 and R v Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623. Jury deliberations are confidential and evidence about them is inadmissible, save for narrow and rare exceptions. Those include serious grounds to believe that the jury wholly repudiated its oath or affirmation, or that it received and considered non-evidential material. A complaint of jury bias may also warrant inquiry in an appropriate case.
3. Jurors have a collective responsibility to report concerns about irregularity to the trial judge before verdict. As explained in R v Baybasin [2014] 1 Cr App R 19, where a complaint is first made after verdict, the court ordinarily acts on the presumption that such a concern would have been reported during trial, absent strong and compelling evidence.
4. The earlier directions hearing had determined the proper scope of the Commission’s inquiry after hearing both parties. The applicant could not reopen that determination merely because he disliked the answers obtained. It would not be appropriate to treat jurors’ answers as inherently suspect and subject them to an ever-widening investigation.
5. Under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23A, the court was prepared, without deciding the point, to assume that it might direct a further investigation where a faithfully conducted Commission inquiry had failed sufficiently to assist on an appeal-relevant matter. Such a power would be exercisable only in wholly exceptional circumstances. This case disclosed no good reason for a further inquiry.
6. The applicant accepted that the Commission’s report could not support his ground. There was therefore no arguable basis on which the convictions could be regarded as unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2025] EWCA Crim 197, the court refused the applicant leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Newport The applicant was convicted of two offences of rape. No citation for the Crown Court decision is stated in the judgment.