TWO conmen yesterday failed to persuade judges to clear their names, despite their protest that an amorous juror at their original hearing had bombarded the prosecuting barrister with champagne, a romantic note, and an e-mail "summons" to dinner.

Dismissing appeals brought by George Steen and Dennis Alexander, who were both convicted of conspiracy to defraud in June last year, Lord Justice Rose said a "fair-minded and informed observer" would not have concluded that the woman juror was biased in the prosecution's favour.

Steen, 56, and Alexander, 49, were prosecuted over a multi-million pound fraud in which businessmen were offered bogus loans.

Steen, of Victoria Road, Darlington, who was sentenced to six years in jail, was described by Lord Justice Rose as "unscrupulous, manipulative and dishonest".

Alexander, from Brighton, was jailed for two years alongside Steen at Southwark Crown Court in London.

Their appeal focused on claims that they were deprived of a fair trial as the woman, who served as the jury foreman, may have let her feelings for barrister Richard Latham affect her judgement.

The Appeal Court scrutinised a note and e-mails sent by the woman a week after sentence had been passed on Steen, Alexander, and a third man who did not appeal.

Lord Justice Rose, sitting with Judge Sir Edwin Jowitt and Mr Justice Treacy, said Mr Latham received a handwritten note of praise and a bottle of champagne.

The QC immediately sent back the note and champagne and told defence lawyers.

He also received an e-mail headed Summons To Attend, in which the woman asked for a date and wrote: "What does a lady need to do to attract your attention?"

The woman later sent a e-mail apologising for her actions.

Lord Justice Rose said there was ample evidence against both men.

He said if the woman juror had expressed bias there were strong grounds for believing that the rest of the jury might have objected to her presence.

Despite lawyers' claims that the woman's actions may have breached the two men's rights to a fair trial, the judges ruled there were no grounds for finding bias on her part.