R v Bruno Sala

Jury deliberations are confidential. An inquiry is permitted only for a complete repudiation by the jury of its oath to try the case according to the evidence, or the introduction of extraneous material. A jury may be discharged before verdict only where there is a high degree of need. Concerns about jury conduct should be addressed under Criminal Practice Direction 8.7. Firm, focused directions may suffice, and an initial failure to appreciate directions does not prevent reliance on jurors’ ability to understand repeated directions. Under section 23A(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, a CCRC investigation cannot be ordered where the court can resolve the matter from the material before it.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Portsmouth by a majority on nine offences arising from allegations by three former intimate partners. During deliberations, concerns arose that jurors were not engaging, that a juror might be relying on previous convictions, and that a juror had used a puzzle book. The trial judge gave agreed corrective directions and refused to discharge the jury. The applicant sought leave to appeal, alleging that the cumulative matters constituted a serious jury irregularity and made the convictions unsafe. The central issues were whether a CCRC investigation should be ordered under section 23A(1) and whether the alleged irregularity required discharge or rendered the convictions unsafe.

Disposition. The application for leave to appeal was refused. The alleged jury irregularities did not make the convictions unsafe.

1. CCRC investigation. A jury irregularity could in principle be a matter for investigation under section 23A(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. However, the statutory requirement that the matter could not be resolved by the court without an investigation was not met. The documents and hearing transcripts were sufficient to decide whether there was an arguable ground of appeal. As explained in R v Thompson & Ors [2010] EWCA Crim 1623, any investigation after verdict and sentence also required the consent of the Court of Appeal.
2. Confidentiality of deliberations. Applying the principle stated in R v Essa & Ors [2023] EWCA Crim 608, further inquiry into the jury’s deliberations would be impermissible. There was no extraneous material, and the evidence fell far short of a complete repudiation by the jury of its oath.
3. Discharge of the jury. A jury may be discharged before verdict only where discharge is necessary, involving a high degree of need, as stated in Winsor [1866] LR 1 QB 289. The trial judge addressed each concern promptly in accordance with Criminal Practice Direction 8.7. The firm directions agreed by counsel were sufficient. The judge was entitled to rely on the jury’s ability to understand and follow the reiterated directions, and refusal to discharge the jury was within the proper ambit of his discretion.
4. Application of those principles. The jury’s questions about the evidence and its acquittals on three counts, including one rape count, demonstrated proper engagement and consideration of individual counts. The cumulative matters therefore did not disclose a complete repudiation of the jury’s oath or an irregularity making any conviction unsafe.

• Crown Court at Portsmouth. The applicant was convicted by a majority on nine counts and acquitted on three. The trial judge refused an application to discharge the jury after concerns arose during deliberations.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The application for leave to appeal was referred to the full court. The court refused leave and held that the convictions were not arguably unsafe: [2026] EWCA Crim 735.