Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The judge exercised proper discretion in addressing the juror's note. The note did not unequivocally indicate prejudice or bias, and the judge's repeated directions to the jury were sufficient. There was no irregularity in the trial and no basis for concluding the conviction was unsafe.
Source excerpt
The applicant failed to provide good reason for delay and the proposed fresh grounds did not give rise to an arguable appeal against conviction; the Criminal Cases Review Commission's investigation established no jury irregularity; the fresh evidence was either inadmissible or could have been presented at trial; and there was no unfairness in the judge's conduct or summing-up.
Source excerpt
Boyce, R. v [2026] EWCA Crim 256 (19 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal granted leave on two grounds about a possible jury irregularity, but refused leave on all other conviction and sentence grounds.
Delecia v R. [2026] EWCA Crim 42 (03 February 2026)
The Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to a rape conviction, holding the trial judge was not required to question the jury after a note about “preconceptions.”
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division refused leave to appeal Jake Vesey’s robbery conviction, finding no credible evidence of jury bias or material prejudice.
Vesey, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1642 (15 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal Jake Vesey’s robbery conviction, finding no basis to say jury irregularity made the conviction unsafe.
Gilder, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1848 (10 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal refused an extension of time and leave to appeal. It found no jury irregularity and rejected late fresh grounds as unarguable.
The CCRC investigation found no evidence of jury bias or irregularity. The applicant's complaints did not meet the threshold for further inquiry, and there was no arguable basis to consider the convictions unsafe.
Source excerpt
There was no sufficient evidence of jury irregularity or breach of oath by the forewoman; the integrity of the jury's deliberations remained intact, and the convictions are safe. The applications for leave to appeal are refused.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal Criminal Division dismissed a renewed application for leave to appeal. It found no unsafe conviction arising from the judge’s response to a jury note.
Explore more
