Two convicted gunmen were not disadvantaged by unfairness in the jury selection system, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Quincy Brangman and Le-Veck Roberts both asked for their convictions to be quashed because prosecutors “stood by” a disproportionate number of potential jurors.

But the appeal found that Brangman and Roberts were not disadvantaged and dismissed their appeals.

Sir Christopher Clarke, the president of the appeal court, said that three of the six jurors stood down by prosecutors in the Brangman case told the court they knew witnesses in the case.

He added that, although the Crown stood down 33 potential jurors in the case of Roberts, 28 of them were later either excused or stood down by the judge in the case and three were seated as jurors.

Mr Justice Clarke added: “I do not accept that we should look at the number of those who were initially stood by and decide that there was an appearance of bias from that number alone.”

Prosecutors were earlier allowed to stand by an unlimited number of potential jurors without a reason, but the defence was only to allowed to make three challenges without cause.

The procedure was ruled unconstitutional by Chief Justice Narinder Hargun last year and changes to the jury selection process have been introduced.

But Brangman and Roberts said their trials were tainted by the old system.

Roberts was convicted along with three other men for the double murder of Ricco Furbert and Haile Outerbridge who were shot in Belvin's Variety store on Happy Valley Road in 2013.

He was convicted in 2015 and sentenced to serve at least 25 years behind bars before becoming eligible for parole.

The Crown stood down 33 jurors in the jury selection for Roberts’ trial – but 28 were later either stood down by the judge or excused.

Three of those who were stood down without reason were included in the jury, which resulted in two jurors being stood by without reason.

Victoria Greening, the counsel for Roberts, said the sheer number of standbys without reason would give the impression of jury stacking by the Crown.

She also suggested that police were in communication with the Crown during the jury selection process.

Mr Mahoney said that the jury selection process for the trial was complicated by the fact there were two defendants and one of the victims was a well-known singer.

The Appeal Panel found that there was nothing to suggest Roberts had suffered any substantial injustice and that it was extremely unlikely there was communication between prosecutors and police officers during jury selection.

Mr Justice Clarke said: “The geography of the courtroom and the quantity of people in it would have made such communication as is said to have taken place very difficult at best and quite probably impossible.

“If it had occurred, it must have been apparent to experienced defence counsel but nothing was said, nor do we have any evidence from them.”

Brangman was convicted of attempted murder for the 2010 shooting of footballer Nathan Darrell.

The court heard Mr Darrell was in his car outside his Southampton home when Brangman – who he identified – shot him.

Brangman was sentenced to 15 years behind bars for attempted murder, to be followed by a consecutive sentence of ten years for using a firearm to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown said that it stood by three potential jurors without reason in the jury selection process for Brangman’s trial.

But Mark Pettingill, the counsel for Brangman, said the figure was six and highlighted three jurors who were stood down after they indicated they knew witnesses in the case.

He said the jurors were not questioned about how well they knew the witnesses and no rulings appeared to have been made by the judge.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, said the prosecutor was attempting to be helpful in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the number of prosecution standbys in the case should be counted as six – but that in the three cases there was a clear reason for the decision.

Sir Christopher added that there was no evidence that Brangman’s case was harmed by the move.

He said: “The case against Brangman was a strong one. He was positively identified by the victim, who said he knew him well, and he did not give evidence.

“He was, of course, perfectly entitled to stay silent, but his silence meant that there was no evidence from him to contradict the inferences that the Crown invited the jury to draw.”

•The Royal Gazette’s policy is not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.