Grooming gang’s appeal over juror is dismissed
EIGHT members of the Huddersfield grooming gang who appealed their convictions because a juror in their trial carried out his own research have had the appeals dismissed.
Raj Singh Barsran, and the seven men he was convicted alongside, appealed their convictions after a man on their jury panel researched his previous convictions.
The gang’s ringleader - Amere Singh Dhaliwal - also appealed the life sentence handed down to him by the trial’s presiding judge - Judge Geoffrey Marson QC.
More than a dozen victims gave evidence during the appellants’ trial from January to April 2018. It was the first trial resulting from West Yorkshire Police’s Operation Tendersea.
The eight defendants were convicted of 85 offences and jailed for a total of 123 years and the juror was later handed a suspended sentence.
Last month, three judges at the Court of Appeal dismissed the applications, which had been made on the grounds of jury irregularity.
The 12 jurors were warned before and during the trial not to conduct their own research, as they would be provided with all the evidence they needed in the courtroom.
On the morning of March 7, 2018, juror John Sayles spoke to the usher and expressed concerns about the pressure of the case.
The juror was separated from the others and in the absence of the jury, defence barristers made an application to discharge the juror.
The usher was told to ask the rest of the jurors what Sayles had said to them about ‘feeling different.’
She returned with a note saying: “Juror said to all jurors felt different in the way he looked at Asian males. Actually looking in cars to see if there are females with them. Other jurors agreed felt same but didn’t want counselling. He felt more tired, going to bed earlier. Juror’s temper more snapping. Juror said I know it’s not right as at the moment still innocent. Juror has Asian work friends. Had a 30 minute assessment. Advised has counselling. Hasn’t spoke to anyone with details.”
The juror was brought into the courtroom and the judge asked: “Do you feel that you will be able to judge the case fairly in accordance with the evidence or do you have reservations about whether you will be able to do that?”
The juror replied: “As I said on day one, I will judge upon the evidence that I have got in front of me and from what Mr Duck, Mr Wright and everybody else has put forward.”
The application to dismiss the juror was dismissed and the trial continued.
During Barsran’s evidence, he said he could not have committed one of the offences as he was in prison at the time.
Prosecutor Richard Wright QC was concerned about the disclosure and, in fairness to the defendant, suggested to his barrister David Bradshaw that perhaps a form of words could be found that would remove the obvious risk of suspicion on the part of the jury that his time in prison might relate to sexual offending. That offer was rejected by the defence ‘for their own tactical reasons.’
Mr Bradshaw made his closing speech on the morning of March 20 and during the break immediately afterwards the jury sent a note saying: “Your Honour, the jury would like to know why we are not to know why Raj was previously in prison when we know about others?”
Again, the prosecution made the same suggestion and it was rejected by the defence.
There was no transcript of the answer the jury were given.
The judge summed up the case against Barsran on the following day. The following morning, Sayles searched Google for his name, then his name plus the year 2013.
During deliberations on April 11, 2018, jurors wanted to know why Barsran had been in prison.
Sayles then said it had been for an assault and another juror told him that he should not be sharing such information.
The following day, a female juror told the court usher what had happened and both jurors were brought before Judge Marson.
Sayles admitted conducting research and was dismissed.
The female juror told the judge that the counts involving ‘that person were decided before anything was said.’
The judge refused the defence application to discharge the whole jury and deliberations continued with 11 jurors. He also refused an application to discharge the jury from returning verdicts on Barsran’s charges.
The jurors - six men and five women - took 30 hours to deliver verdicts.
Barsran, then aged 34, of Caldercliffe Road, Berry Brow, Huddersfield, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of rape and jailed for 17 years.
Juror Sayles was arrested on May 30, 2018 and in his police interview he lied and said he came across the information inadvertently on Predator Exposure’s Facebook page and a Manchester newspaper’s website.
The lie caused a delay in the proceedings as police seized and analysed six digital devices then found he had made four internet searches for Barsran’s previous convictions.
Sayles was handed a suspended prison sentence in March this year after pleading guilty to being a member of a jury who carried out research during the trial period.
The 47-year-old, married, dadof-three, of Meadow Brook Chase, Normanton, works as a paramedic and the Recorder of Leeds, Judge Guy Kearl QC, decided he was needed to serve the public during the coronavirus pandemic.
Appeals were lodged on behalf of Barsran and the seven other men on the grounds of jury irregularity.
The Recorder of London, Judge Mark Lucraft QC, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr Justice Spencer presided over the appeal.
They had to decide if Sayles’ offence had ‘undermined the fairness of the trial and the safety of the convictions.’
Michael Duck QC, who represented all the defendants at the appeal stage other than Barsran, said in his submissions that Sayles had should have been dismissed as soon as his research came to light as he had ‘demonstrated a hostile animus towards males of Asian origin.’
In relation to Dhaliwal, who he had also represented at the trial, Mr Duck submitted that it was not necessary to impose a life sentence and the 18-year minimum term was manifestly excessive.
The trio of judges heard the case at the Court of Appeal in London on June 19 this year and reserved judgment until July 3.
The appeals were all dismissed. In the judgment, Mr Justice Spencer said: “We have given all these submissions very careful consideration. We have reached the clear and firm conclusion that, despite the undoubted jury irregularity, the trial was fair and all these convictions are safe.”
In relation to Barsran, he said: “It is important to remember that the issue on the most serious charge Raj Barsran faced (count 54, rape) was consent. It is difficult to see how the knowledge that he had previously been to prison for assault could have affected the resolution of that issue.
“In any event, despite the juror’s improper disclosure, the jury still had the judge’s very firm direction of law (in writing) not to speculate about why he had been in prison and that the sole relevance of the evidence was as part of his explanation for lying to the police in interview. That direction would have been reinforced by the answer the judge gave to the jury’s subsequent question on 20th March.”