R v BJS
[2024] EWCA Crim 1356
R v AZT
25 October 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1531
Court of Appeal
A man was found guilty of sex crimes. The judge gave the jury extra instructions to help them reach a decision, but he did so in a way that wasn't allowed. Even though the judge broke the rules, the court decided that the guilty verdicts were still correct and the man's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Appellant convicted of causing or inciting a child under 16 to engage in sexual activity (count 6), false imprisonment (count 7), and rape (count 9).
- •Counts 6 related to C1 (appellant's son), counts 7 and 9 to C2 (appellant's wife).
- •Appellant acquitted on other charges.
- •Jury reached verdicts after sending notes expressing difficulty with the meaning of 'sure' and the lack of independent evidence.
- •Judge gave a 'Watson direction' to the jury after considering the notes privately with counsel.
- •Appeal concerns the propriety of the Watson direction and the process by which it was given.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Standard of proof for criminal convictions requires the jury to be 'sure' of the defendant's guilt.
Common law and Juries Act
A Watson direction should only be given as a last resort after a prolonged retirement and following a majority verdict direction.
R v Arthur [2013] EWCA Crim 1852
A judge must not meet privately with counsel on matters of substance in relation to the trial.
Common law
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the judge's procedure in giving the Watson direction was a material irregularity, the court found the verdicts to be safe and not influenced by the direction.