R v Goodwin 2024
The police visited a known drug user at his home who gave an officer access to his mobile phone. The officer saw text messages from a drugs line - the "Debo" line - offering Class A drugs for sale (heroin and crack cocaine).
As a result of this information, the police executed a search warrant at G's home, and three mobile phone numbers identified as relevant were linked to G - one was his personal mobile phone number and the other two were for the Debo line. No Debo line SIM cards were found at G's address.
G was charged with being concerned in supplying a controlled drug of Class A (heroin) to another, and concerned in supplying a controlled drug of Class A (crack cocaine) to another, contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
At trial, G accepted that he was involved in the supply of Class A drugs and that he occasionally had control of the Debo line but claimed that he did this as he was a victim of modern slavery and that he was compelled to become involved in the supply of Class A drugs out of fear for his own safety. G gave evidence and described being from a troubled family background and had become involved in county lines at 16. Prior to the current offence, he had been involved in the supply of drugs and he'd been robbed at knifepoint, and had drugs stolen. This led to him owing a drugs debt which he had to pay off, so he was forced to work selling drugs.
G had a previous conviction regarding the supply of drugs and the Debo line, for which he served a prison sentence. Upon release from prison, G asserted that he was found and again forced to become involved in the supply of drugs.
The issue for the jury was set out in a written route to verdict and was whether G had a defence pursuant to section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
At the end of his summing up, before sending the jury out, the judge gave the jury the usual assurance that they would be under no time pressure to give verdicts that day, they didn't and so returned the next day. The next morning (a Friday), the jury retired once again. The judge reassembled court at 12:14 pm, and indicated to counsel, before the jury came back in, that he would give a majority direction (see note below) . At this stage, the jury had been deliberating for nearly six and a half hours. There was no objection from counsel and the judge gave a majority direction. The jury returned at 2:04 pm, and returned a guilty verdict on each count by a majority of 10 to 2. After the departure of the jury, the judge mentioned to counsel that he had received "some letters" that morning from jurors (jury notes), not expressing any issues in relation to sitting on the jury but simply stating that if the trial went into the following week it would cause them "real difficulty" for reasons that appeared to the judge to be "very sound". He had considered, when he received these communications from the jury, that it was not a matter that he needed to deal with then. He indicated to counsel that he further considered that, as the verdicts had been delivered, no problem arose.
G was convicted and appealed against conviction on the ground that the conviction was rendered unsafe by the failure of the judge to deal correctly with certain jury notes that he received on the day the jury returned their verdicts, as there was a real risk that the jury felt pressured to reach their verdicts that day when the judge failed to respond to the jury notes. The judge should have disclosed the jury notes to counsel before the majority direction was given. Additionally, the fact that each verdict was by a majority of 10 to 2 raised the level of unease, because even if just one juror felt pressure, despite misgivings, to agree with the majority in order to conclude the matter that day, then the conviction was unsafe.
Held
Appeal allowed. Convictions quashed.
The jury notes were not available to the appeal court, so the quantity and exact content was unknown. However, it appeared that more than one of the jurors was seriously concerned about the trial lasting into the following week if verdicts were not reached that day. Their anxiety on the point had led them to write notes to the judge.
The judge, should have shared the jury notes that he received with counsel and given them the opportunity to make representations at the time about how the judge should deal with those notes, and the failure to do so was a material irregularity. He should have done that before he gave the majority direction.
The lack of response from the judge to the jury notes could have led at least one juror, if not more, to have felt pressure to vote with the majority for an improper reason, namely, to bring the jury's task to an end on that day. A concern that was heightened by the fact that the verdicts were by a majority of 10 to 2.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
