R v Bijan Lajevarti

R v Bijan Lajevarti

Although it would have been preferable for the judge to question Juror 2, there is no basis for concluding that the conduct of Juror 1 or the brief exchange with Juror 2 cast doubt on the safety of the conviction or gave rise to any appearance of bias. The judge was entitled to conclude that Juror 1 could remain true to his oath, and there is no evidence that Juror 2 was influenced or that further investigation is necessary.

Parties
Applicant: Bijan Lajevarti; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Legal Topics
Jury Irregularity, Bias, Sexual Offences, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Jury Irregularity Bias Sexual Offences Appeals Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bijan Lajevarti

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction is unsafe due to alleged jury irregularity and possible bias
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to make adequate enquiries regarding communication between jurors

Ratio Decidendi

Although it would have been preferable for the judge to question Juror 2, there is no basis for concluding that the conduct of Juror 1 or the brief exchange with Juror 2 cast doubt on the safety of the conviction or gave rise to any appearance of bias. The judge was entitled to conclude that Juror 1 could remain true to his oath, and there is no evidence that Juror 2 was influenced or that further investigation is necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused