REGINA v JHOSMARK VANEGAS
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
- MR JUSTICE SIMON
- MR JUSTICE COX DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant's conviction for blackmail was challenged based on the jury foreman's comments about weak evidence and the defendant's potential unwitting involvement. The court reaffirmed the principle that a verdict given unanimously without immediate protest is presumed valid and noted the judge's discretion in re-examining the jury's decision. The court found the handling of the jury foreman's concerns appropriate and upheld the conviction.
J U D G M E N T
1. LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: This is an unusual case. It concerns an application for leave to appeal against conviction which was referred to the full court by the single judge. On 13th October 2014 at the Central Criminal Court before Mr Recorder Hardy QC the appellant was convicted of blackmail and the following day he was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. A co-accused had pleaded guilty both to blackmail and to a count of handling stolen goods. The case against the applicant was that that he was party to that blackmail.
2. The circumstances of the alleged offending can be briefly summarised. The applicant, his co-accused and the complainant worked for a large cleaning company at the Barbican Centre. The complainant had been engaged in an extra marital affair with a manager. In fact, by the time of the blackmailing the affair had long finished and the complainant was an assistant manager. She had initially been promoted by the person with whom she was having an affair. That fact, together with her management style, gave rise to a number of complaints from the workforce.
3. In February 2014 she received 13 text messages from a prepaid mobile telephone which told her that the sender knew that her husband was in London and there were photographs and videos of her with the man with whom she had had the affair. The sender demanded payment of £5,000 to a specified bank and threatened that otherwise the information would be sent to her husband.
4. There was evidence of the co-accused purchasing a SIM card for the mobile telephone and the police also recovered letters and other material which had been stolen from the complainant's locker at work and was at his home address.
5. The case against this applicant was essentially that he had helped draft the text and arranged for the transfer of the money. The critical question for the jury, as the judge made plain on at least three occasions in the summing-up, was whether the jury were sure the applicant was a knowing party to the blackmail.
6. Following the conviction the applicant was led away to the cells. At that point the judge made a remark about the gracious way in which he had conducted himself. The lady foreman then asked to speak. The judge directed that she should speak to the usher. There was a communication to the usher and the jury then retired.
7. The usher then went into the witness box, took the voir dire oath and told the judge and counsel what the jury foreman had said