R v Bijan Lajevarti
[2023] EWCA Crim 615
R v Jordan Hernandez
14 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 814
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexual assault. One juror was a retired police officer who initially said he thought the man was guilty. The judge talked to him, and the juror said he would be fair. The court decided the trial was fair, and the man's conviction was upheld.
Key Facts
- •Jordan Hernandez was convicted of sexual assault on February 6, 2023.
- •The appeal concerns a potential juror bias.
- •Juror 11, a retired police officer, expressed concerns about his potential bias in a letter to the court before the trial.
- •The judge questioned Juror 11 about his ability to be impartial.
- •Juror 11 initially admitted bias but later affirmed he would abide by his oath and decide based on evidence.
- •The appeal argued the conviction was unsafe due to the possibility of Juror 11's bias.
Legal Principles
Test for potential juror bias: Whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased.
Porter v McGill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] AC 357
Jury service is a public duty, not voluntary.
Judge's remarks
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
The judge's inquiry into Juror 11's potential bias was thorough. While Juror 11 initially expressed bias, he ultimately affirmed his commitment to impartiality. The Court of Appeal found that a fair-minded observer would not conclude there was a real possibility of bias, considering the judge's assessment of Juror 11's statements and demeanor.