Individual jurors may be questioned about their jury room deliberations for the first time in legal history after a forewoman sent a bottle of champagne and flirtatious note to the prosecuting QC in a serious fraud case.

The Court of Appeal is to decide whether to quiz the jurors, rather than order a retrial, in a case involving Richard Latham QC, who also prosecuted the Soham murder case.

Mr Latham received the champagne, along with a note of congratulation and the juror's telephone number, a few weeks after the jury convicted three defendants of serious fraud last summer.

The note complimented Mr Latham on his success in the trial, and is thought to have asked: 'What does a lady need to do to attract your attention?'

He returned the gift and informed the trial judge, defence counsel and Serious Fraud Office of what had occurred.

Lawyers for all three defendants have appealed against the convictions in Southwark Crown Court on the basis that the forewoman had demonstrated a strong personal/emotional attachment to the lead counsel.

They argue that if such an attachment had been revealed during the trial, she would have been removed from the jury.

'The juror concerned was a dominant personality within the jury not simply because she was the forewoman but also by her overall demeanour,' the grounds state.

There is no implication of any wrongdoing by Mr Latham, who told the Gazette: 'I had no contact with the juror whatsoever, other than addressing her and the 11 other jurors in court.

I did not meet her in the lift, I did not bump into her in the street - there was no contact'.

Lord Justice Rose, vice-president of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, has granted leave to appeal and will preside over a hearing to consider whether enquiries should be made of the jury.

Questioning the jury, rather than ordering a retrial, would be a dramatic change in the legal system.

The confidentiality of jury deliberations is protected by section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

Peter Krivinskas, a partner at David Phillips Krivinskas in Manchester, was solicitor for one of the defendants in the case and is also well known as Asil Nadir's lawyer.

He said: 'Making enquiries of the jury would involve fundamental changes to the constitution.'

The only other known instance where jurors have been questioned was in Young [1995] QB 324, where jurors used a ouija board in a hotel to determine the defendant's guilt.

Examination of the jurors was only possible in that case because the questions related to events outside the jury room.

Jury expert Professor John Spencer of Cambridge University said: 'I believe this would be the first time jurors have been questioned on what has taken place in the jury room.'

The Court of Appeal hearing to decide whether enquiries will be made of the jury will take place within three weeks of 12th January.

James Morton of City firm Chadwyck-Healey & Co and Robert Wong of the same firm, previously at City firm Hughmans, acted for the two other defendants.

See [2004] Gazette, 15 January, 13

By Rachel Rothwell