R v Saad Essa & Ors
[2023] EWCA Crim 608
R v Nicola Tams
15 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 582
Court of Appeal
A woman was convicted of robbery and wounding. After the verdict, she claimed a prison officer talked to a juror about the case. The court said this wasn't a big deal because the juror already knew the verdict, and the conversation didn't affect the fairness of the trial. The woman's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Nicola Tams and Michael Allen convicted of robbery and wounding with intent.
- •Tams applied for permission to appeal against conviction, citing a post-verdict conversation between a prison officer and a juror.
- •The conversation concerned Tams's guilty verdict, with the prison officer learning this from a friend who was a juror.
- •Tams's counsel argued the conversation needed investigation to determine its content and impact on the jury.
- •The prosecution used Tams's prior conviction for unlawful wounding and evidence of her remand in custody to demonstrate propensity for violence and rebut her alibi.
- •The trial judge stated he lacked jurisdiction to address jury irregularities discovered post-verdict.
Legal Principles
Jury deliberations are generally 'forbidden territory' except in limited circumstances.
Mirza [2004] UKHL 2 and Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623
Collective responsibility of the jury begins upon swearing in and includes ensuring each member's conduct aligns with the jury oath and trial judge's directions.
Thompson [2010] EWCA Crim 1623
The court can direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to investigate matters relevant to an application for permission to appeal that cannot be resolved without such investigation.
Section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Outcomes
Application to admit fresh evidence refused.
The fresh evidence (prison officer's conversation) did not imply jury irregularity; the information was already public knowledge and the officer's inquiry was well-meaning; there was no indication of prejudice to the applicant.
Application to direct the Criminal Cases Review Commission to conduct inquiries refused.
The inquiry was deemed unnecessary to determine the application for permission to appeal.
Application for permission to appeal conviction refused.
The alleged irregularity did not afford an arguable ground of appeal.