Shahid Mohammad v Palvaan Islaam
[2024] EWCA Crim 34
William Sartin v R
3 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 766
Court of Appeal
A man's trial went ahead without a jury because someone tried to influence the jury. The man wanted to delay the appeal, but the court refused because the evidence showed jury tampering already, and it didn't matter whether the man was involved. The appeal continued immediately.
Key Facts
- •William Sartin's trial for conspiracy to evade the prohibition on exporting Class A drugs was conducted without a jury due to alleged jury tampering.
- •A man in the public gallery and later outside the courthouse made comments and gestures that were interpreted as attempts to influence the jury.
- •Sartin's lawyers made a late application to adjourn the appeal hearing to investigate fresh evidence from the man involved in the alleged jury tampering.
- •The prosecution and defense initially agreed that jury tampering had occurred, leading to the discharge of the jury.
- •The judge's decision to continue the trial without a jury was based on section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •The appeal against this decision was brought under section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Legal Principles
The judge must determine when to make a decision under section 46(3), balancing the need for a decision with the importance of expedition and the state of evidence regarding tampering.
R v McManaman [2016] EWCA Crim 3
It is not relevant to decide whether the defendant was responsible for the tampering; proof of tampering is sufficient under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
R v Mohammad (Shaid) and Others [2024] EWCA Crim 34 and R v McManaman [2016] EWCA Crim 3
There is a short time limit (five days) for lodging an appeal against a section 46 ruling.
Case Law
Outcomes
The application to adjourn was refused.
The application was extremely late, speculative, and lacked clear merit. The judge had sufficient evidence to conclude jury tampering had occurred, and the defendant's involvement in the tampering was irrelevant. The court deemed it was in the interests of justice to proceed with the appeal hearing immediately.