R v Hassan Tasleem & Anor
[2024] EWCA Crim 956
R v Stefon Francis Winter
10 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1369
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing a child years ago. The jury asked questions during their deliberations that made the man's lawyers think they'd done their own research, which is against the rules. The judge said the jury would have followed instructions, so the appeal failed and the conviction stands.
Key Facts
- •Stefón Francis Winter was convicted of sexual offences against a child (C) many years prior.
- •The offences allegedly occurred when C was 5 years old while staying at the home of her aunt (A), where Winter also resided.
- •C reported the abuse years later to her mother (M), and a police interview was conducted in 1995 (video recorded). Winter was also interviewed (tape recorded, tapes later destroyed).
- •The trial took place in 2024. C and M testified. Winter denied the allegations.
- •During jury deliberations, the jury submitted questions about A's absence as a witness, Winter's potential prior convictions, the 2021 compensation claim by C, the familial relationship between A and Winter, the missing 1995 interview recording and the reasons for reopening the case.
- •The judge reiterated instructions to decide based only on presented evidence, and not to speculate.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 protect the identity of child victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Section 23A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 allows the Court of Appeal to direct an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). This power is rarely exercised.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 23A
Jurors must decide cases solely on the evidence presented and must not speculate or conduct independent research.
Judge's directions to the jury
The presumption is that if a juror misconducts themselves, other jurors will report it. Investigations are not routinely ordered unless there is strong and compelling evidence to the contrary.
R v Frizell and Bowden [2024] EWCA Crim 1108 at [50]
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the application to direct a CCRC investigation.
The court found that the jury's questions, while indicating possible misunderstandings or inaccurate expectations about trial procedure, did not provide evidence of juror misconduct, speculation, or improper research. The court presumed the jury followed the judge's instructions.
The application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
The refusal to direct a CCRC investigation was fatal to the sole ground of appeal.