R v Nicola Tams
[2024] EWCA Crim 582
R v Saad Essa & Ors
26 April 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 608
Court of Appeal
Three people were found guilty of drug crimes. After the trial, jurors contacted them and said they felt bad about the verdict. The court said it can't look into what the jury discussed, and upheld the guilty verdicts.
Key Facts
- •Three applicants were convicted of conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs.
- •After the verdicts, a female juror contacted applicant Essa, and a male juror (foreman) contacted applicant Neilson via social media.
- •Jurors' messages suggested reluctance to convict, pressure from other jurors, and possibly racist comments from a juror.
- •One juror mentioned a 50/50 split in jury opinions.
- •Jurors were drinking alcohol when contacting applicants.
- •Two jurors were charged with disclosing jury deliberations.
Legal Principles
Jury discussions must remain confidential; inquiry into deliberations is inadmissible except:
Common law principle, confirmed in R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118
Exceptions to confidentiality: complete repudiation of oath or introduction of extraneous material.
R v Mirza [2004] 1 AC 1118
Presumption that jurors obey direction to report misconduct to the judge immediately.
R v Thompson [2010] 2 Cr App R 23; R v Baybasin [2014] 1 WLR 2112
Section 20D of the Juries Act 1974: offence of disclosing jury deliberations.
Juries Act 1974
Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981: postponing publication of proceedings until after conclusion of proceedings against jurors.
Contempt of Court Act 1981
Outcomes
Applications for leave to appeal refused.
No strong and compelling evidence to justify departing from the principle of confidentiality of jury deliberations; no complete repudiation of oath or introduction of extraneous material.