R v Pintori (Case & Comment)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Dyson
Judgment Date13 July 2007
Neutral Citation[2007] EWCA Crim 1700
CourtCourt of Appeal (Criminal Division)
Docket NumberCase No: 2006/04017/B3
Date13 July 2007
Between
Regina
Respondent
and
Andrea Pintori
Appellant

[2007] EWCA Crim 1700

Before

Lord Justice Dyson

Mr Justice Forbes and

His Honour Judge Rogers QC

Case No: 2006/04017/B3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOD GREEN

H.H.J. Ansell

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Mr H Charlton (instructed by C.P.S.) for the Respondent

Miss M Dogra (instructed by B.S.B. Solicitors) for the Appellant

Hearing date: 10 July 2007

Judgement

Lord Justice Dyson of the court (giving the judgment of the court):

1

On 5 July 2006, the appellant was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of possession of a class A drug (heroin). On 17 July, he was sentenced to a community order with a requirement to perform 100 hours unpaid work by 16 July 2007 and a requirement of supervision for 18 months. He appeals against conviction with the leave of the Full Court.

2

The appellant lived in a flat at 138 Tiverton Road, Tottenham London N15. He was a drug addict. At 6 am on 7 October 2005 the police carried out a raid at his flat. They found 1.2 grams of heroin in a chest of drawers. In interview, the appellant said that he had been on holiday and that a friend had stayed in his flat.

3

At the trial, the police evidence was that 6 or 7 uniformed officers broke into the flat. PS Hallas (who did not give evidence) was at the front with an enforcer or ram and the other officers were behind him. The officers who gave evidence said that they shouted words to the effect “Police! Get away from the door.” The door was not opened so they had to break their way in and the appellant was put in the bedroom.

4

PC Brackley gave evidence that she was fourth in line behind PS Hallas. She said that there was an interval of 45 seconds after they had shouted “Police!” before the door was broken down. PC Karakas said that he was third in line behind PS Hallas. He said that the door was broken down almost immediately after they had shouted “Police!”. PC Nicholls said that he was second in line behind PS Hallas.

5

The appellant gave evidence and amplified the account he had given in interview. On 7 October, he heard a commotion outside and opened the door. He saw some police officers who told him to close the door. They then broke open the door throwing him against the wall thereby injuring his face. He said that the drugs were not his.

6

On 10 May 2006, one of the jurors was working in the Operation Monitor room at the Central Communications Command Centre, Bow when PS Cooze walked in. The officer knew that she had been on jury service. According to a statement he made on 12 July 2006, he asked her how she was and how her jury service had been. She told him that she had been on a case, but was not sure that she had done the correct thing. She had known some of the officers who gave evidence and was not sure whether she should have said anything to the court staff. They were from her old shift at Islington police station. She started to laugh and said: “I knew them and because I am in this job, I just found him guilty.” The officer said in his statement that at first he thought that she may have been joking due to the flippant manner in which she was talking. He told her to be quiet. A short time later, however, he felt uncomfortable about the conversation. He reported the matter to his chief inspector.

7

Later that day, PS Cooze said that he spoke to the juror again. He told her that she should have mentioned the matter to the court staff and that he had reported it “as it seemed to be a matter of integrity”. He asked her how many of the officers she had known. She said that she had worked with three of them at Islington in her old team, but did not know them socially. She only knew them through her work as communications officer. She also said that by chance she had met another officer involved in the case in a local takeaway shop. This officer had not given evidence. She told PS Cooze that this officer had been the “enforcer officer”. She had asked him how the enforcer worked. The enforcer is a tool used by police officers to force entry into property. The officer was in fact PS Hallas.

8

The statement of PS Cooze was shown to the judge on 17 July before he passed sentence. The judge said that his only power was to grant a certificate of fitness to appeal if he thought that this was appropriate. He said that he was not inclined to do so since there was no dispute that the drugs had been found in the property and the core of the case had been whether the jury believed the appellant's explanation that others may have left the drugs there.

9

The single ground of appeal is that there is a real possibility that the juror and therefore the whole jury was biased against the appellant.

10

In giving leave to appeal, the Full Court directed that the Registrar request a representative of the Criminal Cases Review Commission to interview and take a statement from the juror by asking a number of questions.

11

The questions and answers were as follows:

“Q. What type of job were you doing as a civilian employee of the police service, at the time of your jury service?

A. Communications officer which entails taking calls from members of the public and radio dispatch.

Q. How long had you held the job?

A. Since 18 th November 2002.

Q. How long had you known the following officers, who were called as witnesses at the trial?

A. PC Nicholls:

I recognised one of the male officers. I believe it was PC Nicholls although I could not recall or cannot now be certain of his surname. I worked in Haringey Borough from 18 November 2002 until November 2004 when I moved to Metcall at Lambeth. I worked at both Tottenham High Road and Hornsey Police Stations. I believe this officer had the shoulder number 535 or 538 YR. Whilst I was in Haringey Borough this officer would sometimes call into the control room or I might see him in the police station. I knew him just to say 'Hello' to. I didn't know him personally.

PC Karakas:

I assume from his surname that this was the officer who had the Asian or Turkish appearance. I did not know this officer at all.

PC Brackley:

If that is a female officer then I knew her in the same way as I knew the officer I believe was PC Nicholls. I only recognised these two from the officers who gave evidence.

Q. How long had you known PS Hallas?

A. I remember them saying at the trial that PS 145YR Hallas used the enforcer. He did not give evidence as far as I recall. I knew PS Hallas from my time in Haringey Borough. I would have spoken to him over the radio and sometimes face to face when he came into the control room. He was just someone I worked with. I did not know him personally.

Q. Did you say to the other jurors that you knew any of the three police witnesses?

A. I can't remember.

Q. Did you say to the other jurors that you knew PS Hallas?

A. No.

Q. Did you say to the other jurors that you were employed as a civilian by the police service?

A. I might have done. I was only involved in one case and this was during my second week of jury service. There was a lot of hanging around and we spoke to each other over coffee and people spoke about themselves and some mentioned what they did for a living.

Q. Acting Inspector John Cooze has made a statement detailing a conversation with you on 10 July 2006. He states that he asked you about your jury service. He records the following conversation:

She replied that she was fine, and said that she had been on a case but she wasn't sure if she had done the correct thing. She went on to elaborate that she had been a juror on a case and she had known some of the police officers giving evidence. She stated that she was not sure if she should have said anything to the court staff. She continued that the officers involved in this case were from her old shift at Islington Police Station. She then started to laugh and said, 'I knew them, and because I am in this job, I just found him guilty.'

Did you make this statement? If not, did you say anything to Mr Cooze on this occasion? What did you say to him?

A. I am shocked that he said this. I did have a conversation with him. He approached me and said, 'Hi Ameeta. How did your jury service go?' I remember telling that I recognised two of the officers. I definitely did not say 'I knew them and because I am in this job, I just found him guilty.' The fact of my job had no relevance to the trial or the view I took as a juror. I cannot believe that he said that I had said this.”

12

On behalf of the Crown, Mr Charlton does not concede that the juror said “I knew them and because I am in this job, I just found him guilty”. But he agrees that the appeal should be conducted on the basis that she did make this statement. We shall refer to this as “the juror's statement”. In our view, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of any part of PS Cooze's statement and we proceed on the basis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • DPP v Norris
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 2 April 2009
    ...HAUSCHILDT v DENMARK 1990 12 EHRR 266 PULLAR v UNITED KINGDOM 1996 22 EHRR 391 R v I (ALAN) 2007 EWCA CRIM 2999 R v PINTORI (ANDREI) 2007 EWCA CRIM 1700 2007 CRIM LR 997 AG, PEOPLE v SINGER 1975 IR 408 DPP v MULDER 2007 4 IR 796 2007/20/4152 2007 IECCA 63 CRIMINAL LAW Jury Bias - Objectiv......
  • R v Abdroikov
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 17 October 2007
    ...ACPO (accepted by the committee) extended to civilian employees of the police. The facts revealed in the recent case of ( R v Pintori [2007] EWCA Crim 1700, 13 July 2007, unreported) perhaps suggest that this is not an out-dated perception. Serving police officers remain ineligible for jur......
  • R v Bakish Alla Khan ; R v Lewthwaite
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 14 March 2008
    ...an appearance of bias. This was on the basis that an assertion to the contrary by the juror would not necessarily appear reliable – see R v Pintori [2007] EWCA Crim 1700. We do not accept that submission. There is no reason to doubt the fact that Mr Nield did not know the defendant. Had he......
  • R. v. Abdroikof et al., [2007] N.R. Uned. 177
    • Canada
    • 17 October 2007
    ...(accepted by the committee) extended to civilian employees of the police. The facts revealed in the recent case of R. v. Pintori ([2007] EWCA Crim 1700, 13 July 2007, unreported) perhaps suggest that this is not an out-dated perception. Serving police officers remain ineligible for jury ser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT