William Sartin v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 766
Shahid Mohammad v Palvaan Islaam
24 January 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 34
Court of Appeal
A jury was tampered with during a fraud trial. The judge decided to finish the trial without a jury. The defendants appealed, but the appeal court agreed with the judge, saying it was fair and important to finish the trial to stop jury tampering from working.
Key Facts
- •Jury tampering occurred during a trial involving nine counts of fraud.
- •The judge discharged the entire jury.
- •The judge decided to continue the trial without a jury under section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The appellants challenged this decision under section 47.
- •The alleged fraud involved HMRC and car finance companies, with total losses of nearly £700,000.
- •The main issue was the identity of the fraudsters.
Legal Principles
Right to a jury trial is a hallowed principle but can be amended by legislation.
R v Twomey [2009] EWCA Crim 1035
Trial by judge alone is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Twomey v UK (2013) 57 EHRR SE15
Sections 46 and 47 of the 2003 Act provide a statutory scheme for continuing a trial without a jury after jury tampering.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Save in unusual circumstances, the judge should continue the trial without a jury after jury tampering.
R v Twomey [2009] EWCA Crim 1035; R v S(K) [2009] EWCA Crim 2377; R v McManaman [2016] EWCA Crim 3
The assessment of witness credibility is an ordinary part of a judge's duty.
R v McManaman [2016] EWCA Crim 3
Whether the defendant was involved in the jury tampering is irrelevant; the focus is on the integrity of the jury.
R v McManaman [2016] EWCA Crim 3
It is not too late to continue the trial without a jury, even if the jury is in retirement.
R v Guthrie [2011] EWCA Crim 1338; R v S(K) [2009] EWCA Crim 2377
Outcomes
Appeals dismissed.
The Court of Appeal found no procedural or substantive unfairness in continuing the trial without a jury. The judge's decision met the statutory tests under section 46, and the interests of justice favoured continuation.
Order confirmed.
The trial will continue before the judge alone.
Reporting restriction lifted.
Due to the conclusion of the appeal.