Legal Research
Cases
R v Abdroikov

R v Abdroikov

Case [2007] UKHL 37 17 October 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

HOUSE OF LORDS

SESSION 2006–07
[2007] UKHL 37

on appeal from: [2005] EWCA Crim 1986

OPINIONS

OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL
FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE

R v. Abdroikof (Appellant) and another (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) R v. Abdroikof and another (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) R v. Williamson (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Conjoined Appeals)

Appellate Committee
Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Baroness Hale of Richmond
Lord Carswell
Lord Mance

Counsel

Appellants: Respondents:

Richard Carey-Hughes QC David Perry QC

Michael Maher Mark Heywood

Richard Hutchings (Instructed by Crown Prosecution Service)
Simon Berkson Instructed by :

Appellant Abdroikof: Hayes Burcombe & Co
Appellant Green: Macauley Smith & Co
Appellant Williamson: Colin Watson & Co
Hearing date: 26 July 2007

ON
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2007

HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE

R v. Abdroikof (Appellant) and another (On Appeal from the Court
of Appeal (Criminal Division))

R v. Abdroikof and another (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court
of Appeal (Criminal Division))

R v. Williamson (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal
(Criminal Division)) (Conjoined Appeals)
[2007] UKHL 37

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
My Lords,
1. These three appellants were tried on indictment in different courts on unrelated charges and were convicted. In the first two cases the trial jury included among its members a serving police officer, and in the third case it included a solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecuting Service. The common question raised by these three conjoined appeals is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, on the facts of the three cases, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the trial jury was biased.
2. The Court of Appeal (Lord Woolf CJ, Richards and Henriques JJ) which also heard the appeals together, held that the observer would not so conclude: [2005] EWCA Crim 1986, [2005] 1 WLR 3538. The appellants challenge that ruling.
3. The first appellant, Nurlon Abdroikof, faced counts of theft (to which he pleaded guilty) and attempted murder (to which he pleaded not guilty, but of which he was convicted). The trial last for six days in August 2004 before the Common Serjeant of London at the Central Criminal Court. There was a minor issue concerning one aspect of the evidence of a police witness. On Friday 27 August, when the jury were in retirement considering their verdicts, the foreman of the jury sent a note to the judge revealing that he was a serving police officer. He was concerned that if required to report for duty at the Notting Hill Carnival on the following Bank Holiday Monday, when the court was not sitting, he might meet one or more police officers who had been called to give evidence at the trial. With the acquiescence of defending counsel, who had not previously known of the foreman’s occupation, the juror was directed not to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Abdroikov

Details

AGLC: R v Abdroikov [2007] UKHL 37
Case: [2007] UKHL 37
Decision Date: 17 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The House of Lords was asked to determine whether the presence of police officers and Crown Prosecution Service employees on criminal trial juries in England and Wales rendered a trial unfair, contrary to the appellants' rights to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appellants' appeals. The first appellant, Nurlon Abdroikof, had been convicted of attempted murder and theft. The jury included a police officer, a fact which did not emerge until late in the trial. The second appellant, Richard John Green, had been convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and having a bladed or pointed article. The jury included a police officer who had served in the same borough as the police witness and the appellant, but the officer and witness had not met. The third appellant, Kenneth Joseph Williamson, had been convicted of two counts of rape. The jury included a solicitor employed by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Lords found that the fair-minded and informed observer would not necessarily conclude that the mere presence of a police officer or a Crown Prosecution Service employee on a jury would create such a possibility of bias as to deny the defendant a fair trial. The observer would consider the circumstances of the case, the issues to be decided, the background of the juror in question and the closeness of any connection which he or she might have to the case to be tried. The presence of a police officer or a Crown Prosecution Service employee on a jury was not in itself a sufficient basis to conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased.

However, the appeal of the second appellant, Richard John Green, was allowed because of the closeness of the connection between the police officer on the jury and the police witness. The observer would consider that there was a real and possible source of unfairness, beyond the reach of standard judicial warnings and directions.

The appeal of the third appellant, Kenneth Joseph Williamson, was also allowed because the observer would consider that justice was not seen to be done if one discharging the very important neutral role of juror was a full-time, salaried, long-serving employee of the prosecutor. Williamson was entitled to be tried by a tribunal that was and appeared to be impartial, and in the opinion of the majority of the Lords he was not.

The appeal of the first appellant, Nurlon Abdroikof, was dismissed because the presence of the police officer on the jury did not turn on a contest between the evidence of the police and that of the appellant, and it would have been hard to suggest that the case was one in which unconscious prejudice, even if present, would have been likely to operate to the disadvantage of the appellant.

Orders