R v Cranston (No 25)

This trial commenced on 26 April 2022. In November 2022 it became clear that the trial could not conclude in 2022. I invited the jury to send me a note about their essential and pre-booked Christmas plans, which they did on 21 November 2022. On 19 December 2022, I received a further note from the jury which stated various dates and times in January 2023 in which jurors were unable to sit. The final sentence of that note stated:

At this time, it was unclear when the jury would be invited to retire and consider their verdicts. Given the length of the trial and the time of year, I informed counsel that I proposed to tell the jury that the requests in the note for days off in January, including the above, could be accommodated. That suggestion was not opposed by any party and I told the jury that their requests would be accommodated.

Following the completion of closing addresses by each of the parties on 22 December 2022, I adjourned the trial until 10 January 2023. I completed my summing up to the jury on 18 January 2023 and invited the jury to retire to consider their verdicts that morning.

As the jury had retired, I raised with the parties the desirability of ensuring that there be no lengthy breaks in their deliberations. I invited submissions about the desirability of my refusing to adjourn the trial between 30 January 2023 and 3 February 2023.

For that purpose, on 18 January 2023, after the jury had retired to consider their verdicts, I circulated to the parties the following draft direction:

The giving of the above direction was opposed by the representatives of all parties except Mr Anderson SC, on behalf of Lauren Cranston, who submitted that I should give the direction at [5] above.

The Crown submitted that the direction should not be given but that, rather, I should enquire of the jury whether the juror concerned would agree to sit for at least part of that week. It sought a direction in the following terms:

The Crown submitted that I should invite the jury to reconsider whether they have any ability to be flexible in the times that they sit during the week of 30 January 2023. If the jury responded in the negative the Crown submitted that I should allow the adjournment, lest I inadvertently put pressure on the jury to reach a decision before 30 January 2023.

Mr Stratton SC, on behalf of Adam Cranston, also submitted that I should request that the jury give consideration to whether the entire week commencing 30 January 2023 need be taken off. Mr Stratton submitted that my direction at [5] above that the trial proceed may put undue pressure on a particular juror to return a verdict before 30 January 2023. Counsel for Mr Menon, Mr Onley and Mr Willmott supported Mr Stratton’s submission. They each submitted that the Crown’s amended direction should be given to the jury.

I was reluctantly persuaded that on the basis that four of the accused and the Crown had together joined in opposing my proposal that the jury be required to sit during the week commencing 30 January 2023, I should give the direction essentially in the terms put by the Crown. I gave that direction to the jury on the evening of 18 January 2023. The following day, 19 January 2023, I received the following note from the jury:

All parties submitted that in these circumstances, if no verdicts had been returned by then, I should adjourn the trial from 27 January 2023 until 6 February 2023. For these reasons I adjourned the trial on 27 January 2023 to 9.30 am on 6 February 2023.