KK, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1634 (04 October 2019)

KK, R v [2019] EWCA Crim 1634 (04 October 2019)

The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the entire jury. The judge properly exercised his discretion, adequately investigated the irregularity, and took proportionate steps to preserve the fairness of the trial. There was no real risk of bias or unfairness to the remaining defendants, and the convictions are safe.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1634
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant/applicant: KK; Appellant/applicant: RA; Appellant/applicant: KI; Appellant/applicant: AY; Appellant/applicant: HK; Appellant/applicant: AH; Appellant/applicant: KH; Appellant/applicant: MI
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court at Oxford
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jury Irregularity, Apparent Bias, Jury Discharge, Sexual Offences, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Jury Irregularity Apparent Bias Jury Discharge Sexual Offences Appeal 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

KK

Appellant/applicant

RA

Appellant/applicant

KI

Appellant/applicant

AY

Appellant/applicant

HK

Appellant/applicant

AH

Appellant/applicant

KH

Appellant/applicant

MI

Appellant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Crown Court at Oxford

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the entire jury following a juror's unauthorised internet research and disclosure to other jurors
  2. 2 Whether the convictions are unsafe due to jury irregularity and possible bias
  3. 3 Whether the judge's investigation and directions to the remaining jurors were adequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in refusing to discharge the entire jury. The judge properly exercised his discretion, adequately investigated the irregularity, and took proportionate steps to preserve the fairness of the trial. There was no real risk of bias or unfairness to the remaining defendants, and the convictions are safe.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Convictions upheld
  • No order for retrial