R v Jake McMahon

A jury need not be discharged merely because individual jurors express concern or feel intimidated. The trial judge may address such concerns through appropriate reassurance and clear directions, provided there is no evidential basis for concluding that the jury cannot comply with its oath or decide the case only on the evidence.

Where those steps resolve the concerns, and the verdicts demonstrate a conscientious assessment of the charges, a conviction will not be arguably unsafe. A renewed and wholly unmeritorious application may justify a loss of time direction.

The applicant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of two counts of rape and acquitted of a third count. He received extended sentences under Sentencing Act 2020.

During the retrial, jurors sent notes concerning their ability to deal with the case, possible local links to the applicant, and their perception that he was staring at them from the dock. The judge gave reassurances, enabled one juror to refresh her memory from the interview transcript, and directed the jury to draw no inference from the applicant’s conduct in the dock. He refused the defence application to discharge the jury.

The applicant, acting in person, renewed an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. He contended that the jury’s concerns showed prejudice and animosity which made the convictions unsafe.

1. The court refused the four-day extension of time and refused leave to appeal against conviction. The sole ground was unarguable because there was no evidence that the jury had acted on prejudice or animosity rather than the evidence.

2. The trial judge dealt properly with each jury note. The concerns raised at the outset did not recur. The jurors concerned about possible local links were reassured that the applicant was not based in the relevant areas. The judge also properly dealt with the concern about the applicant’s behaviour in the dock by giving a generous explanation of it and directing the jury to ignore it.

3. A decision not to discharge a jury is proper where the judge’s responses have resolved the concerns and there is no basis to conclude that jurors cannot honour their oaths. Nothing after the judge’s directions suggested that the jury remained unable to try the case fairly. Trial counsel did not seek any further direction on the point.

4. The acquittal on the third count reinforced the conclusion that the jury had considered the evidence carefully and without prejudice. The convictions were therefore not arguably unsafe.

5. The renewed application was wholly unmeritorious and had wasted court time. Pursuant to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the court made a loss of time direction for 28 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 269, refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction, and made a 28-day loss of time direction.

• Crown Court at Liverpool — On 19 October 2023, convicted the applicant of two counts of rape and acquitted him of a third count. On 22 November 2023, imposed extended sentences pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.