Khan Abdul v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 1477
R v Hassan Tasleem & Anor
11 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 956
Court of Appeal
Two men were convicted of murder. Later, someone said a juror had revealed the guilty verdict before the jury officially decided. The court decided there wasn't enough proof to reopen the case. They said jury discussions are secret, and the evidence didn't show the jury was unfair.
Key Facts
- •Hassan Tasleem and Gurdeep Singh Sandhu were convicted of murder, possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life, and perverting the course of justice.
- •The convictions followed a long trial involving nine men accused in connection with the fatal shooting of Mohammed Haroon Zeb.
- •Months after the convictions, allegations of jury misconduct emerged, suggesting a juror prematurely disclosed the jury's intended verdicts.
- •The alleged disclosure was reported by members of the deceased's family to a police officer.
- •The applicants sought extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction based on the alleged jury irregularity.
Legal Principles
Confidentiality of jury discussions; exceptions for complete repudiation of the oath or introduction of extraneous material.
R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118; R v Thompson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1623; R v Tams (Nicola) [2024] EWCA Crim 582; R v Essa and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 608
Collective responsibility of the jury to ensure conduct consistent with their oath and the judge's directions.
R v Thompson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1623
The Court of Appeal may direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to investigate matters relevant to an appeal or application for leave to appeal, if certain conditions are met.
Section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction were refused.
The court found insufficient grounds to direct a CCRC investigation. The reliability of the alleged juror's statement was questionable, and even if true, it did not definitively indicate jury bias or a verdict reached outside the proper process. The court highlighted the collective responsibility of the jury and the inconsistencies between the alleged premature decision and the actual deliberation process.