R v Jannick Jensen
[2023] EWCA Crim 1706
Khan Abdul v R
15 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1477
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of rape. He appealed, saying the police didn't share all the evidence and the jury was biased. The court looked at the evidence and decided the mistakes weren't big enough to overturn the guilty verdict. They also didn't investigate claims of jury bias because the rules about keeping jury discussions secret are very strict.
Key Facts
- •Abdul Khan convicted of assault by penetration and rape of C1 and rape of C2.
- •Offences occurred in similar circumstances, approximately 3 years apart.
- •Both complainants met Khan at a nightclub and were subsequently taken to a secluded area.
- •Khan's defence was that all sexual activity was consensual.
- •Concerns raised about prosecutorial disclosure failures and jury misconduct.
- •A juror sent a note expressing concerns about racial bias and the jury's quick decision-making.
- •Post-trial, the juror sent a letter detailing further allegations of racial bias and pressure within the jury.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Prosecutorial duty of disclosure under section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996.
Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996, section 8
The court's inherent jurisdiction to maintain the fairness of the trial.
Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
The common law principle of jury deliberation confidentiality.
Common Law
Exceptions to the rule of jury deliberation confidentiality; investigation permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as complete repudiation of the oath or consideration of extraneous material.
R v Essa [2023] EWCA Crim 608 at [32]; Thompson [2010] 2 Cr App R 27
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction refused.
The court found no arguable grounds of appeal relating to disclosure failures or jury misconduct. While acknowledging some prosecutorial errors and the juror's concerns, the court determined these did not render the trial unfair or the convictions unsafe.
No further investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
The court determined the juror's post-trial letter, while raising concerns, did not meet the exceptional circumstances required to justify an inquiry into jury deliberations. The allegations did not demonstrate a complete repudiation of the oath or reliance on extraneous material.