A lovelorn juror was said to need no help in reaching her verdict at a fraud trial - the prosecuting barrister was a dreamboat.

The smitten woman sent the handsome QC champagne and an amorous note "summonsing" him to a romantic dinner date.

But instead of the five-month hearing resulting in an intimate dinner for two, the woman was accused of jeopardising the outcome of the trial involving fraudster Dennis Alexander, from Rottingdean, Brighton.

The woman was the foreman of the jury in the trial. The object of her desire was 57-year-old barrister Richard Latham.

Watching the legal eagle in action for five months sent her heart soaring. She sent a card to his chambers, congratulating him on his "superb delivery" and "really outstanding performance" during the hearing.

It was attached to a legal-style document headed "Summons to attend: Mr Richard Latham".

The document "required" the QC to "attend a dinner date" on July 26 and answer this key question: "What does a lady need to do to attract your attention?"

She said Mr Latham deserved to "crack open" the champagne bottle which she enclosed.

But Mr Latham was horrified and promptly returned the gift pointing out it could not be accepted.

Dennis Alexander and another man, George Steen, were each convicted of conspiracy to defraud at Southwark Crown Court in June last year over a multi-million-pound scam in which businessmen were allegedly offered bogus loans.

Alexander, 49, was jailed for two years and Steen, from Darlington, for six.

Both men yesterday lost their appeal against their convictions on the grounds the jury foreman's "partiality" may have robbed them of a fair trial.

Dismissing the appeals, Lord Justice Rose said a "fair-minded and informed observer" would not have concluded the woman was biased in the prosecution's favour.

Philip Singer QC, for Alexander, earlier told the Appeal Court in London the note and champagne were sent to Mr Latham after the two men were sentenced last year.

He claimed the woman's letter revealed she regarded the jury's verdicts as "cause for congratulation", that she was attracted to the prosecutor and that she had tried during the case to communicate her attraction and interest by what she described as "constant eye contact".

Her note also revealed she was determined to let him know of her interest, also providing him with a phone number and email address.

He said: "Equally plainly, she had gone to considerable trouble to achieve this objective and the objective plainly was to initiate a relationship with Mr Latham."

It was impossible to know at what stage during the five-month trial she had become interested in Mr Latham.

From early on in the case it had become clear she was one of the "dominant personalities" on the jury because of the keen interest she showed in the proceedings.

The juror was noticeable due to her intense focus on the proceedings, particularly when one juror - dubbed "the smelly juror" - had to be discharged after complaints from his fellows.

Asked by Judge Sir Edwin Jowitt on what basis he could describe the note as congratulatory, Mr Singer replied the champagne was a key indication of congratulation and celebration, adding: "Champagne is the essence of all this".

It was impossible to be sure Alexander and Steen had received a fair trial.

Mr Singer said: "One cannot say she was not influenced, not only by her personal partiality but also by her partiality to the case."

He said there was a great danger she allowed personal feelings to affect her judgement.

Both men had the right to receive a fair trial but such "personal partiality" for the prosecuting lawyer "must be capable of taking us over the line into a breach of that guarantee".

Mr Latham QC, recently named barrister of the year in The Lawyer awards, was chief prosecutor in the Soham murder trial.