The Court of Appeal has given its reasons for dismissing J.N.’s appeal against a rape conviction, rejecting claims that jurors began deliberating before hearing all the evidence and receiving the trial judge’s charge.
The court had dismissed the appeal on 16 June 2022 and issued its reasons in a judgment delivered on 27 July. The appeal concerned the jury’s discussions and the limits on examining those discussions after a verdict. The court did not reopen the conviction or order a further inquiry.
J.N. was convicted on 27 January 2020 of rape under section 48 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981, as amended. The case concerned an allegation that he raped his niece when she was staying with her grandparents. The judgment said J.N. contended that the allegation was fabricated.
During the trial, the jury foreperson asked whether jurors could talk at the end of the day to clarify what they had heard. The trial judge said they could discuss evidence for administrative purposes, such as recalling which witnesses had testified, but could not assess its weight or decide whether to accept it before hearing all the evidence and the judge’s charge. The foreperson assured the court that the jury had not discussed a verdict.
The jury began deliberating on 24 January 2020 and returned a unanimous verdict on 27 January. After the trial, a juror contacted J.N.’s senior counsel. A letter sent to the court alleged that some jurors had made up their minds after J.N.’s evidence and before the judge’s charge. The appeal court noted that the juror’s account was not sworn evidence; J.N.’s solicitor had filed an affidavit exhibiting correspondence.
The prosecution argued that the allegation was unsubstantiated and that jury deliberations were protected by the no-impeachment rule. The Court of Appeal said the rule protects private jury discussions and that the exceptional cases allowing inquiry involved external evidence of irregularity. It found no such external evidence in this case and said the case did not approach circumstances that might justify further inquiry.
The court also said the trial judge had dealt appropriately with the foreperson’s questions. It found no merit in either complaint about premature deliberations and dismissed the appeal against conviction.