R v Saad Essa & Ors
[2023] EWCA Crim 608
R v Fowsi Haji
25 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 955
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of fraud. After the jury left, two jurors said the verdict wasn't unanimous. The court refused to overturn the verdict because they didn't say anything at the time. The law says that jurors must speak up immediately if they disagree with a verdict, or the verdict stands.
Key Facts
- •Fowsi Haji was convicted of fraud for falsely claiming to have lived at Grenfell Tower.
- •Two jurors approached court staff the day after the verdict, claiming the verdict was a majority, not unanimous decision.
- •The foreman announced a unanimous guilty verdict.
- •No juror expressed dissent during the verdict announcement or immediately afterward.
- •The judge was initially preparing to give a majority direction before the foreman announced a unanimous verdict.
Legal Principles
Jury deliberations are confidential; inquiries into those deliberations are inadmissible unless there is complete repudiation of the oath or introduction of extraneous material.
Common law principle, confirmed in *R v Mirza* [2004] 1 AC 1118
If a juror disagrees with the verdict, they should express dissent immediately; otherwise, assent is presumed.
*Nanan v The State* (1986) 83 Cr App R 292
Post-verdict complaints are generally insufficient to cast doubt on the verdict, particularly if made significantly later (e.g., the following day), as jurors could be influenced by external factors.
*R v Lewis* [2013] EWCA Crim 776, *R v Ul Hamid and Khan* [2016] EWCA Crim 483, *R v Yussuf*
Section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows the Court of Appeal to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, s.23A
Outcomes
The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal were refused.
The court found that the post-verdict complaints were made too late, and there was no sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the safety of the conviction. The late nature of the complaints, coupled with the lack of immediate dissent, meant that the announced verdict was accepted as accurate.