R v Haji 2024
H had obtained accommodation and payments by falsely claiming to have been living at Grenfell Towers at the time of a fire in that building. The defence case was that W had told the truth, and any incorrect information was a result of misunderstanding because of language difficulties, his mental health and alcohol abuse issues.
Following the trial, the judge gave his directions of law, counsel gave closing speeches, and the judge summed the facts up. The judge explained the jury’s verdict must be unanimous and not a majority verdict. The judge also explained their verdict would be delivered in court by the foreman, or forewoman, who would speak on behalf of them all. During jury deliberations a note was sent to the judge which prompted the judge to re-assemble the court. He told the jury that he was going to give them a further direction, but that the clerk would first put a question to the foreperson. Upon being asked by the clerk, the foreman announced a unanimous guilty verdict, which was later disputed by two jurors, who stated their verdict was by majority. They felt they could not object at the time as they were unsure whether they were permitted to speak in court.
H was convicted of fraud.
W applied for leave to appeal against conviction on the following grounds:
- The foreman returned a unanimous guilty verdict when in fact there was no unanimity.
- Even if there was agreement to a majority verdict, no majority direction had been given and the jury would not be entitled to return such a verdict without first receiving a majority direction.
- The verdict was a "non-verdict" returned in error by the foreman. As such, it is submitted, the verdict announced by the foreman is unsafe.
Held
Application to appeal refused. Conviction safe.
- The jury had been very clear instructions as to their responsibilities. They can have been in no doubt about the importance of raising any concerns promptly. The jury had also been given a very clear direction, of which they had a copy in writing, that they should try to achieve a unanimous verdict and that the judge would give a further direction if ever that position changed.
The verdict given by the foreman was inaccurate and the jury decision was a majority one, not unanimous. However, no juror said anything to indicate concern or disagreement either in court, or after leaving the courtroom, to the usher or any other court official at any subsequent opportunity which would have undoubtedly arisen.
- The judge was intending to give a majority direction and was not expecting an affirmative answer to the question asked by the clerk. The judge exercised good sense in asking a question himself in order to give the foreman an opportunity to confirm whether the verdict he had just pronounced was indeed unanimous.
The fact that the jury had sent their note in terms which prompted the judge to prepare to give a majority direction does not of itself cast doubt on a unanimous verdict announced a short time later. Jurors who have for a time been inclined towards a different verdict are entitled to change their views and agree with the majority, and may do so quite suddenly.
When the jury came back into court, they all knew that no further direction had been given. When they did return to court, the judge, very sensibly and helpfully, explained to them what was going to happen and told them the terms of the question which their foreman would be asked to answer on behalf of all of them. Each of the jurors knew what answer they expected the foreman to give. Each of the jurors knew what they wanted the foreman to say when the judge asked his clarificatory question, yet no juror said anything to indicate concern or disagreement.
- The verdict was safe. After being dispersed, the jury could have discussed the case with family and friends, and may have been influenced in their view regarding the appropriate verdict. The timing of the jurors raising their concerns came too late to cast arguable doubt on the safety of the conviction.
