Gul, R v [2012] EWCA Crim 259

Case No 2011/3247/C1[2012] EWCA Crim 259
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Thursday, 26 January 2012
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE HOOPER
MR JUSTICE EADY
MR JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM
Between
R E G I N ACrownv
Between
ALI GUL
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International LimitedA Merrill Communications Company165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Digby appeared for AppellantMr T Devlin appeared for Crown
J U D G M E N T

LORD JUSTICE HOOPER:

[1]On 12th April 2011 in the Crown Court at Wood Green, before Mr Recorder Ashley-Norman, the appellant was convicted of one count of failing to give a satisfactory explanation to the Official Receiver contrary to section 354(3) and 350(6) of the Insolvency Act 1986. At an earlier trial he had been convicted of a similar count but the jury could not agree on this count and therefore the appellant was retried.[2]It is not necessary to go into the facts of the case at all because the ground of appeal concerns only what happened during the course of the deliberations of the jury. It is sufficient to say that the appellant was of Turkish origin. The case was very straightforward and there was nothing to suggest that there was any other criminality. It was an extremely simple case.[3]The jury had been in retirement for an hour when they sent a note to the judge. That note, so we are told, was written by someone who appeared to counsel also to be of Turkish origin. The note came in at 12.25 on 7th June and said this:
"The defendants and witnesses are from the same community I socialise and shop in and we also share the same cultural background. Due to this I am concerned about my safety."
The judge separated the juror out, asked him some questions and decided, rightly, to discharge the juror from any further involvement in the case.[4]There was then a note at 14.47. Unfortunately the full contents of this note were not available to the single judge when he gave leave to appeal and it may well be that he would not have given leave had he had the note. Indeed it was not until yesterday that the full note became available to counsel and to this court. This note reads as follows:
"Prior to the 12th member sharing information with us we had already reached a majority verdict. After sharing the information our verdict and votes remain the same, but some members of the jury feel contaminated and have concerns about what they heard from the 12th member."
It is right to point out that the jury had not yet been given a majority direction. It also seems clear to us from the note and from what happened thereafter that before the 12th member had shared the information with them they had reached a verdict of 11 to 1 in favour of conviction. The note points out that their verdict and votes "remained the same" after receiving the information from the 12th member. The judge then asked the jury whether they felt able to continue their deliberations on the evidence and to exclude from their deliberations any concerns about which they may have been told. That question was posed to the jury at 15.20. The answer came in at 15.25: "Yes". Then at 15.26 the jury sent a note saying: "We have reached a unanimous verdict." Very shortly after that the jury came in and found the appellant guilty.[5]In our view it is clear from those notes that any concern there might have been about the impact of the views of the 12th juror upon the others is completely misplaced. It is clear that they had reached a decision in favour of convicting the appellant, albeit by a majority of 11 to 1, before they heard from the 12th member. It is clear that the one dissenting juror was the 12th member and it is clear that the jury said that after sharing the information their verdict and votes remained the same. Precisely why some members of the jury felt contaminated and had concerns about what they had heard is neither here nor there. It may well be a reference to the fact that they were concerned that one member of the jury should decide on such a simple case that he could not participate in the deliberations because of his links with the local community. Whatever the jurors meant by that, it cannot affect the safety of the conviction and this appeal is dismissed.