R v Jordan Hernandez
[2023] EWCA Crim 814
R v Bijan Lajevarti
16 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 615
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of a crime. One juror revealed they'd been abused as a child and briefly talked about it with another juror outside the jury room. The judge questioned the first juror, and the appeal court decided this didn't make the trial unfair, so the conviction stayed.
Key Facts
- •Bijan Lajevart was convicted of indecent assault (Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 14) following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court.
- •During the trial, a juror (Juror 1) disclosed to the jury officer that he had been a victim of childhood sexual abuse.
- •Juror 1 also revealed that he briefly discussed this with another juror (Juror 2) in the toilets, stating 'I know exactly how she feels because I've been in that situation myself'.
- •The judge, following Criminal Practice Direction 26M, questioned Juror 1 who affirmed his ability to remain impartial and deliver a true verdict.
- •The applicant appealed, arguing the judge should have also questioned Juror 2 and that the conviction was unsafe due to potential juror bias.
Legal Principles
Jurors must only discuss the case when all members are present and in the jury room to avoid potential bias and maintain fairness.
R v Edwards [2021] EWCA Crim 1870
The test for potential juror bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a reasonable possibility or real danger of bias.
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
Criminal Practice Direction 26M outlines the procedure for dealing with potential jury irregularities, including steps to establish facts and assess bias.
Criminal Practice Direction 26M
Past victimhood of a crime does not automatically disqualify a juror, provided they can remain impartial.
Court’s own reasoning
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found no evidence that Juror 1's disclosure affected the fairness of the trial or that Juror 2 was biased. The brief exchange between Jurors 1 and 2 did not constitute a discussion of the case and was unlikely to influence the verdict.
The request for a Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) investigation was refused.
The court concluded there was no basis to suggest the conviction was unsafe.