Hanif & Anor, R v (No 2)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Hanif and Khan were convicted of conspiring to supply heroin. Concerns about jury impartiality arose when it was revealed that one juror knew a key police witness. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal after the Strasbourg Court ruled there was a violation of Article 6. Hanif's conviction was quashed due to juror partiality, and a retrial was ordered. Khan's conviction was upheld because his case was based on different evidence, unaffected by the juror issue.
Judgment
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, CJ:
This judgment must not be published until after the conclusion of the re-trial the court has ordered:
In this appeal by way of reference from the Criminal Cases Review Commission we have to consider whether the convictions of the appellants are unsafe by reason of the decision of the fourth section of the Strasbourg Court that the presence of a police officer on the jury violated the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ( Cases of Hanif and Khan v UK 52999/08, 61779/08, 20 December 2011 ) .
It is necessary to set out the background.
The proceedings
On 21 August 2006 the appellant Hanif, a taxi driver, travelled from Luton to Sheffield. His journey was under the observation of the police. At Sheffield he met Rasul. On his return journey the car was stopped and six kilograms of heroin were discovered in the boot of the car. Hanif denied that he knew anything about the drugs in his car. He was charged with the appellant Khan, Niaz Khan, Younas and Rasul with conspiracy to supply heroin.
The appellants’ trial commenced on 3 January 2007 in the Crown Court at Sheffield before HH Judge Keen QC and a jury; Niaz Khan, Younas and Rasul pleaded guilty; the Crown relied on their pleas. On the second day of the trial the court heard evidence from police officers including an officer, Mark Blackburn. In the course of his evidence a juror sent a note to the judge which read:
“I am a serving police officer. I know Mark Blackburn but I haven’t worked with him for over two years.”
Counsel were informed and agreed questions were put to the juror who provided the following information:
He worked in the South Yorkshire Police Force as a dog handler; he was based at Maltby near Rotherham.
He had known Mark Blackburn for 10 years. He had worked with him on three occasions connected with the same incident but not in the same team. They undertook different roles.
They had never worked at the same station. He had been based at Maltby whereas Mark Blackburn worked at the Rotherham Central Police Station. They would greet each other in passing, for example at the police station or football match. They had never seen each other socially. He did not know that Mark Blackburn had left South Yorkshire police.
He did not think he knew anything about Mark Blackburn which would affect his ability to judge Mark Blackburn’s evidence impartially. He would judge the case in accordance with the oath he had sworn.
C