Benchbook Criminal 2010

CROWN COURT
BENCH BOOK
...............................................................
Directing the jury
March 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: ConContentsting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
contents anD checklist
Page

FOREWORD v

INTRODUCTION TO THE CROWN COURT BENCHBOOK vii
Chapter 1: Structure and Content of the Summing Up 1
Chapter 2: Introductory Words at Commencement of Trial 9
Chapter 3: Fitness to Plead 11
Chapter 4: Preliminary Directions of Law 13
(1) ChildDefendants 13
(2) SeparationofRoles 14
(3) BurdenandStandardofProof 16
(4) SeparateConsiderationofCountsand/orDefendants 17
(5) SpecimenCounts 18
(6) TrialintheAbsenceoftheDefendant 23
(7) TrialofOneDefendantintheAbsenceofAnother 27
(8) AlternativeVerdicts 29
(9) Delay 30
Chapter 5: The Prosecution Case and Principles of Criminal Liability 35
(1) CircumstantialEvidence 35
(2) Conspiracy 38
(3) Intention 44
(4) IntentionFormedinDrinkorUndertheInfuenceofDrugs 47
(5) Dishonesty 50
(6) Recklessness 53
(7) CriminalAttempts 56
(8) PartiestoCrime 57
Introduction 57
(i)Participation(SimpleJointEnterprise) 64
(ii)DefendantNotPresentAssistingAnothertoCommittheOffence 67
(iii)PresenceatandEncouragementofAnothertoCommittheOffence 68
(iv)CounsellingorProcuring(DirectingorEnabling) 69
(v)FurtherOffenceintheCourseofaJointEnterprise 73
(9) Causation 78
(10)AgreementontheFactualBasisfortheVerdict 90
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

i
Contents & CheCklist
Chapter 6: Measures for Witnesses 97
(1) SpecialMeasures 97
(2) AnonymousWitnesses 99
(3) Intermediaries 103
Chapter 7: Identifcation Evidence 107
(1) VisualIdentifcation 107
(2) IdentifcationfromCCTVandOtherVisualImages 113
(3) IdentifcationbyFingerandOtherPrints 126
(4) IdentifcationbyVoice 132
(5) IdentifcationbyDNAEvidence 137
Chapter 8: Expert Evidence 148
Chapter 9: Corroboration and the Need for Caution 155
Chapter 10: Good Character of Defendant 161
Chapter 11: Bad Character of Defendant 166
ExplanationofContents 166
GeneralIntroductionandDirections 167
Distinguishingbetweenevidenceofmisconductandevidence
whichhastodowiththeoffencecharged 169
(1)ImportantExplanatoryEvidence 172
(2)EvidenceRelevanttoanImportantMatterinIssuebetween
ProsecutionandDefence 175
(i)PropensitytoCommitOffencesoftheKindCharged 175
(ii)PropensityforUntruthfulness 182
(iii)DefendantsSignature 187
(iv)RebuttingaDefence 190
(3)SubstantialProbativeValueinRelationtoanImportantMatter
inIssuebetweenDefendants 192
(4)EvidenceToCorrectaFalseImpressionGivenBytheDefendant 195
(5)DefendantsAttackonAnotherPersonsCharacter 198
Chapter 12: Cross Admissibility 202
Chapter 13: Bad Character of Person Other Than a Defendant 209
Chapter 14: Hearsay 212
(1) GeneralIntroduction 212
(2) WitnessAbsent 214
(i)WitnessUnavailable 216
(ii)BusinessRecords 217
(iii)InterestsofJusticeprosecution 219
(iv)InterestsofJusticedefence 220
ii
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) WitnessPresent 221
(i)PreviousInconsistentStatement 221
(ii)StatementtoRefreshMemory 223
(iii)StatementtoRebutanAccusationofFabrication 224
(iv)StatementAdmissibleasEvidenceofPerson,ObjectorPlace 226
(v)StatementofMattersNowForgotten 227
(vi)StatementofComplaint 228
(4) StatementsinFurtheranceofaCommonEnterprise 231
(5) ResGestae 233
(6) MultipleHearsay 234
Chapter 15: The Defendants Statements and Behaviour 237
(1) Confessions 237
(2) Lies 242
(3) OutofCourtStatementsbyAnotherPersonasEvidenceForor
AgainsttheDefendant 250
(4) DefendantsFailuretoMentionFactsWhenQuestionedorCharged 258
(5) DefendantsFailuretoAccountforObjects,SubstancesandMarks 268
(6) DefendantsFailuretoAccountforPresenceataParticularPlace 271
(7) FailureofDefendanttoMakeProperDisclosureoftheDefenceCase 272
(8) DefendantsSilenceatTrial 283
Chapter 16: Defences 289
(1) Alibi 289
(2) SelfDefenceandRelatedIssues 293
(3) Duress 306
(4) InsaneandNon-InsaneAutomatism 315
(5) Provocation 330
(6) DiminishedResponsibility 340
Chapter 17: The Trial of Sexual Offences 353
(1) CautionAgainstMakingBehaviouralAssumptions 353
(2) AllegationsofHistoricalSexualAbuse 363
(3) TheEvidenceofChildWitnesses 366
(4) Consent,CapacityandVoluntaryIntoxication 371
Chapter 18: Jury Management 377
(1) EmpanellingtheJury 377
(2) DischargeofaJurororJury 382
(3) ConductingaView 386
(4) TheWatsonDirection 387
Chapter 19: Verdict 388
Appendix: 1
Chapter15:DefendantsStatementsandBehaviour
(1)Lies
JSBFormerSpecimenDirection27 391
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010 iii
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contents & CheCklist
Appendix: 2
Chapter15:DefendantsStatementsandBehaviour
(4)DefendantsFailuretoMentionFactswhenQuestionedorCharged
JSBFormerSpecimenDirection40.1 393
Appendix: 3
Chapter16:Defences
(4)InsaneandNon-InsaneAutomatism
JSBFormerSpecimenDirection47 395
iv
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ForeworD by the lorD chieF justice
ThisnewJudicialStudiesBoardCrownCourtBenchbookwaspreparedbyMrJusticePitchford(ashethen
was)afterheconsideredwhatwasneededtobringthevastarrayofvaluableJSBtrainingmaterialsforusein
theCrownCourtuptodate,andarrangedinaformatthataccommodatesboththerecentdelugeofprimary
legislation,andthemanyappellatedecisionsinwhichthelegislationhasbeeninterpreted.
Itwasclearlyaformidabletask.Herosetoitwithadmirablerigour,clarityanddepth.Theendresultis
remarkableforitscomprehensionand,Ihope,induecourse,itsutility.Weallhavecausetobegratefulto
him.
Weareallfamiliarwiththeso-calledspecimendirectionsforjuries.Wereadoftheminthenews.We
hearmuchaboutthemintheCourtofAppeal.And,ofcourse,weusethemintheCrownCourt.Butthe
greatvalueofthespecimendirectionhasalsothepotentialtobeaweakness.Whatwasintendedtoprovide
guidanceandassistancetojudgeshas,onmanyoccasions,toallintentsandpurposes,operatedasifjudges
wereboundbythemwhentheywerepreparingtheirsummingupandsometimesthespecimendirections
havebeenincantedmechanisticallyandwithoutanysuffcientlinkwiththecasebeingtried.
InthisBenchbook,theobjectivehasbeentomoveawayfromtheperceivedrigidityofspecimendirections
towardsafreshemphasisontheresponsibilityoftheindividualjudge,inanindividualcase,tocraftdirections
appropriatetothatcase.
Intheabsenceofspecimendirections,onecouldbeforgivenforaskingthequestionwhat,then,istherole
oftheBenchbook?Theanswertothatquestionissimple:theroleoftheBenchbookisintegraltotherole
ofthemodernjudge.Throughitsthoroughexpositionofthesummaryoftherelevantlaw,bulletpointed
ingredientsfordirections,someessential,mostcallingforajudgmentastorelevance,,andillustrative
examples,itguidesthejudgeinthecraftingofdirections,andshouldbeausefulstartingpointofreference
ontheBench.
SavewheretheCourtofAppeal(CriminalDivision)hassoruled,thecontentsoftheBenchbookhavenolegal
authority.ToooftenithasbeensubmittedintheCourtofAppealthatajudgesfailuretofollowaspecimen
directionhasrenderedtheconvictionunsafe,andwehavehadtoemphasisethatthedirectionsarenot
binding.Contrarytogoodpractice,advocatesclosingspeechesoftenincludewordstotheeffectofHis
HonourthejudgewilltellyouthisorHerHonourwillsaythatfollowedbyapre-emptoryreference
tothecontentsofoneormorespecimendirections.Thecautioninducedbysuchinappropriatepracticesis
fuelledbyatoo-readypropensitytoarguebeforetheCourtofAppealthatthespecimendirectionsshould
havebeengiveninfull,orthatanunmeriteddeparturefromthespecimentexttookplace.Thatculturemust
changeandIhopethatthisBenchbookwillgoasignifcantwaytowardsachievingthataim.
v
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ofcourse,itwouldbeunrealistictoattemptaninstantcrossoverfromspecimendirectionstoself-crafted
directions.Alllawyers,judgesincluded,resorttoprecedent.Manyjudgeshavecraftedtheirownlibraryof
directionswhichmaybetailoredfromcasetocase,and,providingthedirectionsgivenareappropriateto
thecaseandrefectthecurrentlaw,Iencouragethatpracticetocontinue.Othersfndgreatassistanceinthe
specimendirections.Forthatreason,theJSBwillnotbewithdrawingtheearlierdirectionsbutunlikethe
newBenchbook,theearlierJSBmaterialswillnotbeupdated.JudgesshouldrelyonthisnewBenchbook,and,
tailortheirdirectionsaccordingly.Inthat,andwithgreatthankstoLordJusticePitchford,Iwishthemevery
success.
LordJudge
LordChiefJusticeofEnglandandWales
vi
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
introDuction to the crown court
benchbook
Inthe1970stheJudicialStudiesBoardbegantopublishSpecimenDirectionswhosepurposewastoassisttrial
judgespreparingtheirlegaldirectionstojuriesinsummingup.TheJSBhasneverclaimedlegalinfallibility
andaspiredonlytogiveadvice.TheauthorsoftheSpecimenDirectionspresentedmodelswhichcouldbe
adaptedtoanyfactualcontextbut,onappeal,variationfromtheJSBmodelwasliabletoattractcriticism
fromtheappellantadvocateortheCourt.Asaresult,thetemptationwastotakethesafeoptionofreading
thespecimenintoasummingupwithoutsuffcientadaptationtotherequirementsofthecase.In2008,
withtheencouragementoftheVice-President,LathamLJ,and,later,LordJudgeCJ,theCriminalGroupat
theJSBcommencedawholesalereviewoftheBenchbook.Afterastutteringbeginningthebulkofthework
wasundertakeninthesecondhalfof2009.Muchofitfell,conveniently,withintheperiodofmoratoriumfor
implementationoftheJudicialTrainingStrategy.ThiswasamajorundertakingandtheCriminalGroupatthe
JSBisgratefulforthejudicialandacademictimegrantedtocompleteit.
TheBenchbookwasdesignedasanelectronicreferencework.Judgesarewellfamiliarwiththeuseof
electronicresearchandtheformatwehavechosenisconducivetoit.Electronicproductionhasgivenusthe
freedomtoincludematerialwhichwemightotherwisehaveomitted,andithasprovidedtheopportunity
tomakeextensiveuseofthehyperlinktooriginalmaterials.Thedecisionhasbeenmadetoproducethefrst
editionalsoinhardcopy.OurintentionistoupdatetheBenchbookatannualintervals.
Inexpressingthetaskfacedbytrialjudgeswehavefrequentlyneededtorefertotheindividualjudge.Using
genderneutralphraseologycan,inacontextsuchasthis,bedistracting.Forthatreasonalonewehavecalled
thejudgeheand,ofcourse,heincludeseveryjudge,maleorfemale.
WewishtoexpressourgratitudetothemanyjudgeswhorespondedtotherequestfromtheDirectorof
Studies,HHJudgeJohnPhillips,tocontributetothereview.Someofthesuggestionsmadewillberecognised
bytheirauthorsinthecurrentwork.ThefnaldraftoftheBenchbookhasbeenincirculationamongCriminal
GroupCourseDirectorsandTutorJudgesforconsultationbeforepublication.Wearegratefulfortheirhelpful
suggestionsforimprovement.Theprocessofconsultationisnotcomplete.Weseekfrompractitionersand
judgescontinuingnotifcationofanyerrorsoromissions,orsuggestionsforimprovement.
SpecialthanksareduetoProfessorDavidOrmerod,ProfessorofLaw,QueenMary,UniversityofLondon,
forhisinvaluablecontributionasconsultanttotheproject.Responsibilityforthecontentsremains,however,
entirelywiththeJudicialStudiesBoard.
Finally,wewishtoacknowledgetheremarkablequalityoftheworkdonebyformerjudicialdraftsmenofthe
JSBSpecimenDirections.Astheprojecthasprogressed,ouradmirationforourpredecessorshasjustgrown
andgrown.
vii
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
how to use the benchbook
ItisintendedthattheBenchbookshouldbeapointofreferenceforjudgespreparinglegaldirectionsfora
summingup.Mostofthematerialswillbefamiliartoyoubuttheyhavebeenputtogetherinonereference
workaimedspecifcallyfortheuseofjudges.TheContentspagesatthefrontoftheBenchbookareintended
toservebothasanindexandasachecklist.
ItisimportanttorememberthatthisBenchbookisnotintendedtobeadirectreplacementfor,norshould
itbeusedasifitwere,theSpecimenDirections.However,foratransitionalperiodtheSpecimenDirections
willcontinuetobeavailablebecausewerecognisethatjudgesarefamiliarwiththemandsomewillwishto
continuetoconsultthem.TheSpecimenDirectionsarenot,however,necessarilyuptodateandparticular
attentionshouldbepaidtotheirvariousdatesofissue.
Dependinguponthesubject,youwillfndthateithertheadviceondirectionsisgiveninbulletpointor
numberedparagraphform(see,forexample,Chapter2PreliminaryDirections)orthesubjectisdividedinto
threeparts:Introduction, DirectionsandIllustration(see,forexample,Chapter5TheProsecutionCaseand
PrinciplesofCriminalLiability).
ThepurposeoftheIntroductionistoexplainwhyandinwhatcircumstancesadirectionisrequired.
ObservationsbytheCourtofAppeal,theHouseofLordsorSupremeCourtastothenecessaryorappropriate
contentsofthedirectionhavebeenincluded.Whereadirectionmaycreateaparticularproblemfortrial
judgesanattempthasbeenmadetoanalyseitandtosuggestwhatshouldormightbethetrialjudges
approach.WehavedoneourbesttoachievelegalaccuracybuttheJSBdoesnotclaimtohaveprovided
aninfallibleorcompletesummaryoftherelevantlawor,whereitappears,anunimpeachableanalysisofa
particularpracticaldiffcultywhichfacestrialjudges.Youwillnoticethatinmanyinstancesthephraseitis
suggestedthatisusedtosignifythattheauthordoesnotregardthepointassettledbutisproposingwhat
maybealegitimateapproachtoitssolution.
ThepurposeoftheDirectionssectionistoidentifyinbulletpointformboththosedirectionswhichare
requiredandthosewhichoughttobeunderconsiderationwhenyouarepreparingtherelevantdirection.In
ordertotakefulladvantageoftheDirectionsitisadvisabletoreadtheIntroductionaswell.Thisisbecausethe
introductorymaterialoftendemonstrateshowthetermsofalegaldirectionwilldependupontheparticular
issuesrevealedbytheevidence.
AnIllustrationhasbeenprovidedwhereitisthoughtthatitwillassisttoillustratethelegaldirectionrequired.
Theevidentialcontext,wherethereisone,is,ofcourse,hypotheticalalthoughsometimeslooselybasedon
thefactsofanactualcase.InseveralchaptersorsectionsyouwillfndanillustrationofaRoute to Verdict
tailoredtothesamehypotheticalevidentialcontext.TheappropriateuseofaRoute to Verdict isconsideredin
Chapter1.
Anillustrationofthewayinwhichadirectionmightbegivenisjustthat.Itshouldnotbetreatedasa
specimen.Itistheretoprovidethereaderwithideas,includingideasastohowitcanbeimproved.Some
Illustrationsarebasedoncomplicatedfactualsituationsanddealwithotherlinkedlegalissues.Thatisbecause
itisoftentheexplanationofcomplicatingfactors(e.g.therelevanceofdrunkennessinself-defence)which
createsthepracticaldiffcultyforajudgeengagedinexplainingthelawtothejury.
viii
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Eachsectionconcludes,asbefore,withareferencetosourcesotherthanthosespecifcallyidentifedinthe
footnotes.TheyareusuallyreferencestothelatesteditionofArchbold,Blackstone(currently2010),Smith
andHogan,CriminalLaw,12thEdition,RookandWard,SexualOffences,3rdEdition,andtoProfessorJohn
SpencersworkonBadCharacter,2ndEdition,andHearsay.Werecommendthatjudgesshouldbefamiliar
withrelevantsectionsoftheEqualTreatmentBenchbook,particularlythoseconcerningthetreatmentof
childrenincriminalproceedings(Part4,chapter4.4)andthosewithdisabilities(Part5).
InChapter1wehavedrawnattentiontotheroleandpurposeofthesummingupinthemodernjurytrialand
togoodpracticeasidentifedbyexperiencedjudges.Thetermsinwhichajudgeseekstoachieveclarityand,
wherepossible,brevityisverymuchamatterforindividualjudgementandpreference.Wesuggestthatthe
CourtofAppealwillbeinterestednotsomuchinwhetherprecedenthasbeenfollowedbutinwhetherthe
legaldirectionchosenwasclearandappropriate.
ChristopherPitchford
DirectorofTraining,CriminalGroup
March2010
ix
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
x
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 1: structure anD content oF
the suMMing up
Trial by Jury
Oursystemofjurytrialremainsmuchasithasbeenformanygenerationsbuttheburdenofthejurors
taskhaschangedmarkedly.Advancesintechnology,communicationandscience,andthecomplexityand
sophisticationofthemoderncriminallawandthelawofevidence,havecreatednewchallengesforjurors
andtrialjudgesalike.Sometrialsareverylong.Themorewefocusuponjurorsneedsinthemanagement
andconductoftrials,andinsummingup,thebetterablethejurywillbetoperformtheirtaskaccuratelyand
confdently.
Jury Service
Jurorswillusuallycometotheexperienceforthefrsttime.Theywillbeunfamiliarwiththelawwhichthey
needtoapply.Manywillneverhaveengagedintheprocessofreachingacommunityofviewbyanalysisof
evidence.WhilejurorsinwaitingreceivemuchusefulinformationandadviceattheCrownCourt,thescale
oftheobligationtheyundertakeshouldnotbeunderestimated.Manyofthemwillbeanxiousabouttheir
performanceofanimportantpublicdutyevenwithintheprivacyofthejuryroom.Thefrstresponsibilityof
thetrialjudge,wepropose,istoassisteachmemberofthejurytounderstandandperformhisorherduty
toreturnatrueverdictaccordingtotheevidence.Thatresponsibilityincludesensuringthatjurorsquickly
becomeacclimatisedtothecourtroomandtothebusinessoftrial.Muchcanbeachievedbyintroductory,
explanatoryandreassuringwordsattheoutset.
1
Timetakenatthisearlystagetoexplaintheirtask,their
responsibilitiesasjudges,andthearrangementswhichwillbemadefortheirconvenience,willdomuchto
avoidfrustrationandalienation,particularlyinalongtrial.ThelistofpossibletopicsraisedinChapter2serves
toillustratewhatcangowrongwithoutappropriateguidanceatanearlystageintheproceedings.
The Purpose of the Summing Up
Thetaskofthetrialjudgeinsummingupistopresentthelawandasummaryoftheevidenceinsuchawayas
besttoenablethejurytoreachajustconclusion.
2
Thatcanbeachievedonlyifthetrialjudgecommunicates
effectivelytothejurytheissueswhichtheyneedtoresolveandtheirlegitimateapproachtotheevidence
relevanttothoseissues.Resorttolegalphraseologyisnotlikelytobehelpfulifsuitablealternativesinplain
Englishareavailable.
Thetrialjudgeisintheperfectpositiontoformajudgementhowbesttocraftthesummingup.Howthat
assistanceisachievedisentirelyforthetrialjudgeinthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase.Practicevaries.
Thereisnomodelandnotemplate,justgoodpracticelearnedbytheexampleofothers,thought,and
preparation.
3
Footnotes
1
SeeChapter2
2
C.f.CriminalProcedureRules1.1(1)
3
SeeBlackstoneD17.21/44forasummaryofcommondirections
1: struCture and Content of the suMMing up
2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Discussion with the Advocates
JudgmentsoftheCourtofAppeal,CriminalDivision,frequentlyexpressregretthatthetermsofalegal
directionwerenotdiscussedinadvanceofspeechesbetweenthetrialjudgeandtheadvocates.Thisis
becauseexperienceshowsthat,intheabsenceofdiscussion,necessarydirectionscanbeoverlookedor
unhappilyframed.Discussionsshouldtakeplaceroutinely.Iftheyservenowiderpurpose,theywillatleast
concentratemindsontheissuesinthecase.
1. Legal Directions the essential introduction
Ashortexplanationaboutthestructurethejudgeproposestoadopt,thebreaksheintendstotake,and
thelikelylengthofthesummingupwillpreparethejuryforwhatistocome.
4
Somejudgesintroducetheirsummingupwithasummaryofthegeneralfactualbackgroundfounded
upontheundisputedevidence,endingwithastatementoftheprincipalissueorissuesbetweenthe
prosecutionandthedefencewhichthejuryisbeingaskedtoresolve.
Thejudgewillexplaintheseparationofhisrolefromthatofthejury.
5
Itmayalreadyhavebeenexplained
attheoutsetofthetrialand,ifso,inashortcasetherewillbenoneedtorepeatitinfull,providedthat
referenceismadetotheexplanationalreadygiven.Itisimportant,however,thatjurorsaredirectedor
remindedinthesummingupthattheymustreachtheirownconclusionsontheevidence.Therefore,
(1)whilethejudgewillsummarisetheevidence,theymustreachtheirconclusionsonalltheevidence,
whetherthejudgehasspecifcallymentioneditornot;and(2)whilethejudgemay(orwill)comment
upontheevidence,itistheirassessmentoftheevidencewhichmustdeterminethoseconclusions.
Otherdirectionsusuallygivenearlyinthesummingupincludetheburdenandstandardofproof,the
scopeandstructureoftheindictment,theneedtoexaminetheevidencerelatingtoeachdefendanton
eachcountseparately,andalternativeverdicts.
Directionsastounanimousverdictsandtheneedforaforemanofthejurycanbegivenwheneverthe
judgethinksappropriate,usuallyjustbeforethejuryretires.
2. Legal Directions the elements of the offence and the defence
Alllegaldirectionsconcerningtheoffencechargedhaveafactualcontext.Thejurydoesnotrequire
adissertationonthelaw.
6
Whatthejuryneedsisastatementofthatwhichtheprosecutionmust
proveinthecontextofthefactsofthecase.Wherethereisnoissuethatsomeonecommittedthe
offencecharged,
7
andtheissueiswhetheritwasthedefendantwhocommittedit,theremaybeno
needtoembarkonadetaileddefnitionoftheoffence,especiallyiftheelementsrequiredtoprovethe
defendantsguiltareproperlyidentifedinaRoutetoVerdict.
Thedefenceshouldbefullyandfairlysummarised.
Footnotes
4
Thereareusuallylocalarrangementswhichcanbemadetoaccommodatesmokersduringbreaks.Iftherearenone,ornone
whichcanbemadewithoutcompromisingsecurity,thejuryshouldbeforewarnedsothatsmokerscaniftheywishconsiderthe
useofsubstitutes.
5
SeeChapter4
6
Lawrence[1982]AC510(HL),LordHailshamatpage519
7
Ifthereisdoubtitshouldberesolvedindiscussionwiththedefenceadvocateatthecloseoftheevidence
3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Itwillassistthejuryifthejudgeexplainsthatsomeofhisdirectionsoflawwillconcerntheelements
oftheoffencewhichtheprosecutionmustprove,whileotherswillconcerntheirproperapproach
totheevidence.Thescopeforconfusionwillbereducedifthejuryaretoldinadvancewhenthe
judgeisdealingwithamatteroflawconcerningtheoffence,whenheisdealingwithamatteroflaw
concerningtheirconsiderationoftheevidence,andwhenheissummarisingtheevidenceitself.
Written Route to Verdict and Written Directions of Law
Wherethecaseiscomplexthejudgeshouldconsiderwhetherthereislikelytobeadvantageinproviding
thejurywithawrittenRoute(orSteps)toVerdict,whichisnomorethanalogicalsequenceofquestions,
couchedinwordswhichaddresstheessentiallegalissues,tobeansweredbythejuryinordertoarriveattheir
verdict(s).Occasionally,ajudgemayalsowishtoconsiderprovidingawrittenlegaldefnitionforthejurys
use.ThereareseveralexamplesintheBenchbook.
InGreen
9
KennedyLJgavevaluableadviceonthesubject:
26.Thiswasnotaneasycasetosum-up,andnocomplainthasbeenmadetousaboutthesumming-up,but
therewasalotoflawforthejurytoremember,andtheevidencewasnoteasytodistil.Legaldirectionshadto
begiven,andweregivencorrectlyinrelationtomurder,manslaughter,robbery,jointenterprise,self-defence,
lies,theruleagainsthearsayandadyingdeclaration,andgoodcharacter,butnothingwasreducedtowriting
intheformofaseriesofquestionsoranotewhichthejurycouldtakewiththem.Inacaseofthiscomplexity,
andinparticularinasituationwhereitwasknowninadvancethatthedeliberationswouldbeinterrupted,we
considerthattoberegrettable.Thequestionsaskedbythejury,towhichwewillcomeinamoment,show
howvaluableawrittenaide-memoirmighthavebeen.Itisalsoworthrememberingthatthepreparationof
anaide-memoirdoestendtoresultinbothcounselandthejudgeconsideringwithsomecarehowbestand
inwhatordertotacklethelegalandfactualissuesinthelightoftheevidenceasithasemerged.
Whetherthecasedemandsanywrittenassistanceisforthejudgetodecide.Somejudges,incomplexor
lengthycases,providethejurywithawrittenRoutetoVerdictorwithwrittenDirectionsofLaw,orboth.
IfthejudgedoesintendtoprovideaRoutetoVerdictorwrittenDirectionsofLawtothejury,thedocument
should,ifcircumstancesallow,beshowntotheadvocatesinadvanceofspeechesandinanyeventbefore
thesummingup,sothattheycancommentandsuggestamendmentsiftheywish.Thewriterhas,onseveral
occasions,beenmuchassistedbytheadvocatesinthepreparationandamendmentofaRoutetoVerdictbut
thesuggestionsdonot,ofcourse,havetobeacceptedifthejudgedisagreeswiththem.Writtendirections
oflawshouldbeanintegralpartofthesummingupwhichthejudgeandthejuryreadtogether.ARouteto
Verdictshouldbereadtogetheratasuitablepointfollowingthejudgesexplanationoftheelementsofthe
offenceand/ordefence,orjustbeforethejuryretires.
IftheRoutetoVerdictorwrittendirectionsdonotencapsulateeverywordofthejudgeslegaldirections,as
theyalmostcertainlywillnot(theywillnot,forexample,includeanydirectionsconcerningtheseparation
ofrolesandthejurysproperapproachtoevidence),thejuryshouldbeinformedthatthedocumentisnot
intendedtobeareplacementfor,butanadditionto,thelegaldirectionsgivenorally.
Footnotes
9
[2005]EWCACrim2513
4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Legal Directions fair evaluation of the evidence discussion with counsel
Legaldirectionsconcerningtheevidencemaynowoccupyagreaterpartofthesummingupthan
directionsconcerningtheoffence,andmanyarejustasimportant.Thepurposeofthesedirectionsis
usuallytohelpthejurytoseetheevidenceinitsappropriateperspective,ortocounselthejuryagainst
usingtheevidenceinaninappropriateway.
Discussionwiththeadvocatesatthecloseoftheevidence,astotheneedforsuchdirections,and,if
necessary,thetermsinwhichthedirectionwillbegiven,isdesirable.Sincethejudgewillneedtorefer
toatleastsomeoftheargumentsforeachparty,discussionprovidesanopportunityforthejudgeto
discoverhowtheadvocatesintendtoapproachtheseissueswiththejury.Assistancefromthejudgemay
alsoenabletheadvocatestofocusonthematerialissues.
Itisnotalwaysastraightforwarddecisionatwhatpointinthesumminguptodeliverlegaldirections
astotheevidence,whetherinacompartmentoftheirownimmediatelyfollowinglegaldirections
concerningtheoffence(s),oratasuitablemomentimmediatelybeforesummarisingtherelevantpartof
theevidence,oracombinationofboth.Ifitisconvenienttodevoteasinglesectioninthesummingup
toallorsomeofthelegaldirectionsconcerningtheevidence,asitoftenwillbewhentherearemultiple
issuesordefendantstowhomtheyapply,itwillbehelpfultothejurytodeliverareminderofthoseearlier
directionsbyplacingthemwithintheirevidentialcontextduringthesummaryoftheevidence.
Directionsoflawuponthepermissibleapproachtoevidencemayaffectthecaseofonedefendantina
differentormorenuancedwaythaninthecaseofanother,andthejudgeshouldbecarefultoensurethat
hisdirectionscaterforthecircumstancesofeachdefendantaffectedbythedirection.
10
4. The Evidence Relevant to the Issues Identifed

Howtoorganiseasummaryoftheevidenceisamatterforindividualjudgementbaseduponthe
natureoftheevidenceandtheissuesinthecase.Almostneverwillitbehelpfulorappropriatesimplyto
summariseeachwitnessinturn.
InGreen
11
KennedyLJwentontoobserve:
27.Furthermoreinpresentingtheevidenceitisoftenhelpful,inacaselikethis,topresentit,aswehave
attempted to present it, in chapters, arranged in chronological order, each chapter drawing together
alloftheevidenceinrelationtoaparticularaspectofthehistorybeforemovingon.Ourpresentationis
incompletebecauseforpresentpurposeswehavenot,forexample,founditnecessarytoreferindetailto
theexpertevidenceinrelationtomobiletelephonecalls,ortothecontentsoftheinterviewrecords,butat
theappropriatestagesinthenarrativethejurycouldhavebeenreferredtothatevidence,whichtheyhad
beforetheminwriting.Thestraightforwardwitnessbywitnesspresentationusedinthiscasemeantthat
thejuryneverhaddrawntogether,withtheauthorityofthejudge,thecontrastingevidencefromthelay
witnessesandthepoliceoffcersandthedefendantsinrelationto,forexample,thetelephonecallsmade
byClaireGibsontoScottafterthestabbing.Thatweregardasregrettable.
Footnotes
10
SeeMiahandOthers[2009]EWCACrim2368perHughesLJatparas41-50
11
[2005]EWCACrim2513

S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Dependinguponthenatureoftheevidence,thenumberofdefendantsandtheissuesarisingbetween
theprosecutionandthedefence,therearedifferentwaysoforganisingthesummarywhichinclude:
1.Countbycount,defendantbydefendant;
2.Chronologically,chapterbychapter(assuggestedinGreen);
3.Issuebyissue;
4.Ingroupsofwitnesses,lay,expertandpolice,or
5.Amixtureofsomeoralloftheabove.
Theobject,ineverycase,willbetopresenttheevidenceinamannerwhichislikelybesttoassistthejury
todojusticetotheparties.
12
Inacasewithseveralchapters(e.g.acircumstantialevidencecase)itmaybehelpfultoprovidethejury
withawrittenstructureofthesummaryofevidencewhichthejudgeproposestoadopt.Inthiswaythe
jurywillbeabletoseeeachchapterinthecontextofthewhole.
What should a summary of the evidence contain?
Brevityisavirtue,providedthatessentialmattersarenottherebyomitted.
13
Essentialmattersarethose
whichbeardirectlyontheissuesthejuryhastodetermine.Thejudgeisnotobligedtorepeatevery
bywaytakenbytheevidence,butisentitledtoassesswhatisimportantandwhatisperipheral.Provided
thatthejuryisdirectedtoconsideralltheevidence,theywillknowthatthejudgeisnot,byomission,
impartingamessagethatthereisevidencewhichtheycansafelyignore.Ifthejudgechoosestobe
selective,itisbestforhimtotellthejurythatiswhatheisdoing;thatthejudgementwhatisimportant
evidenceandwhatisnotisforthejurytomake;thatiftheywishtoberemindedoftheevidence,whether
thejudgehasmentioneditornot,theyshouldsendanoteandhewillcallthembacktocourt.
Thejurystaskmayincludeanassessmentoftheveracity,reliabilityoraccuracyofacriticalwitness.
Accordingly,evidencerelevanttothatassessmentshouldberegardedasessential(e.g.interesttoserve,
hostilewitness,inconsistentstatements,evidencecontradictedbyothers).
Inalmosteverytrialthereisastratumofagreedfactwhichwillformthebackdroptotheissuesthe
juryhavetodetermine.Thoseacceptedfactsneednotbeattributedtospecifcwitnessesandneed
notberepeatedjustbecausetheyarereferredtobymorethanonewitness.Muchoftheevidencecan
besummarisedinanarrativethirdpersonform.However,onthecriticalissuesitmaybepossible,ifthe
accuracyandcompletenessofthejudicialnotepermits,togiveaverbatim,frstperson,accountofthe
witnessevidence,whetherinchief,incrossexamination,orinre-examination.Ifso,itislikelytoassist.
When and how to deal with defence evidence
Ifthejudgehascraftedhissummaryoftheevidenceintocategoriesorchapters,heisperfectlyentitled
toadoptthesameapproachwiththeevidenceofthedefendantandhiswitnesses.Itisnotessentialto
summarisethedefendantsevidenceinaspacereservedtoitself,althoughifthedefendantsevidenceis
dividedupinthisway,thejudgeshouldensurethatnothingimportanthasbeeninadvertentlyomitted,
andthewriterspracticeis,atsomestage,toprovideabaresummaryofthewholesothatthejuryhasa
compositepictureofthedefendantscase.

Footnotes
12
SeetheobservationsofRaffertyJinRv.C[2009]EWCACrim2376at29
13
Kumar[2005]EWCACrim1979,perLawsLJat21and38
o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Whenthedefendanthaselectednottogiveevidencebutreliesuponexplanationsgivenininterview,the
judgewillneedtodealwiththestatusoftheinterviewandtoremindthejuryofthesalientpartsofit.
14
Expert evidence
Expertevidencerequiresspecialpreparationandcare.Usually,theresultsofexamination,inspectionor
testarenotindispute,buttheconclusionstobedrawnfromtheresultscertainlyare.Ifthoseconclusions
arebaseduponopinionsexpressedbytheexpertthejurywillneedtoevaluatetheirquality.Thatmaybe
possibleonlybycriticalanalysisoftheexpertsreasoning,ananalysiswhichrequiresanunderstanding
oftheprocessinwhichtheexpertwasengaged.Itisthereforeofsomeimportancetothejudgesability
helpfullytosumuptheevidencethattheexperthasbeenrequiredinevidencetoexplainthatprocess
intermswhicharecomprehensibleandjargon-free.
15
Withoutcare,expertevidencecanbeovervalued
oritslimitationsmisunderstood.Thetrialjudgehasaresponsibilitybothtopresenttheexpertevidence
intermswhichwillassistthejurytoanunderstandingandtoexposeanylimitationsinitseffect.Heis
perfectlyentitledtointerveneduringtheevidencetoseekexplanationswithaviewtoassistingthejuryin
hissummingup.Itmakessensetodealwithcompetingexpertevidencebycategory.Onlyinthiswaycan
thejurysensiblyfollowandresolveanydisputebetweenexperts.
Delivery
Thebestspeechestothejuryfromtheadvocatesarethosewhichdonotwastewordsandconcentrate
ontherealissues.Thesameappliestoasummingup.Bythetimethejurylistenstothesummingupthey
willhaveheardtwoormorespeechesalready.Advancepreparationtodeliverthesummingupwithin
acomprehensiblestructureexplainedtothejuryattheoutsetwillbringclarityandavoidunnecessary
repetition.Comfortableattentionspanvarieswidelybetweenindividuals.Whenthesummingupis
likelytotakelongerthananhourorso,plannedbreaksatsuitableintervalswillenablejurorstorelaxtheir
concentrationandre-focusontheirreturntocourt.Themoreorganisedintosubjectsandchaptersthe
summingupisthebetterthejurywillbeablefollowandappreciateitsstructureandcontent.
Jurorspaycloseattentiontowhatthejudgesays.Theywillfeelconnectedandreassuredbyeyecontact
fromthejudgewhenheissummingupeveniftheothereyeisonacomputerscreenornotebook.
Balance
Aone-sidedsummingupisnotlikelytobeafairsummingup.Thejudgeisnotrequiredtoignorethe
fact,ifitisthefact,thatthedefendantscaseappearstobeatoddswiththeprevailingevidence,butit
isnothisjobtosupportorappeartosupporttheprosecutionattheexpenseoffairandindependent
considerationoftheevidencebythejury.
Footnotes
14
SeeChapter15(8)DefendantsSilenceatTrial
15
NotetherequestmadebyThomasLJtothepartiesinReed,ReedandGarmson[2009]EWCACrim2698atpara28toprovidethe
CourtofAppealwithanagreedPrimeronDNAanalysis,andtheopportunityprovidedatthePCMHincasesinvolvingtechnically
diffcultscientifcevidence(seealsoparas128-134)torequiresuchassistance.
7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Representations from the Parties
Practicevariesbetweenjudgeswhethertoinvitesubmissionsfromthepartiesattheendofthesumming
up.SirPaulKennedy,whowhenaLordJusticeofAppealaddressednewlyappointedRecordersfor
theJSBonthebusinessofsummingup,didnotinvitesubmissionsbutconsideredthemifmade.The
writerspreferenceistoasktheadvocatesimmediatelyafterthejuryretirewhethertherehasbeenany
signifcanterrorinoromissionfromthesummingupforwhichtheyseekcorrection.Theobjectisto
givetheadvocatesaspecifcopportunitywhich,intheabsenceofinvitation,theymaylaterregretnot
seekingoftheirowninitiative.Ifthesummingupcontinuesbeyondanovernightadjournmentthesame
opportunitycanbegivenattheendofeachday,ifnoteachsession.
6. Questions from the Jury
If,followingretirement,thejurysendsanoteseekingelucidationofadirectionoflaw,thenoteshould
beshowedtotheadvocatesandtheirresponseshouldbesought.Itisdesirablethatthedirectionshould
berepeatedinthesametermsasthoseinwhichitwasoriginallygiven,provided,ofcourse,thatthetrial
judgeremainssatisfedthatitwasaccurateandcomprehensible.Iffurtherexplanationisrequireditis
bettergivenafterrepetitionoftheearlierdirectionandshouldbecraftedsoastominimisethedangerof
confusion.
Shouldthejudgereceiveanotedisclosingadivisionofopinionbetweenmembersofthejury,itshould
notbedisclosedtotheadvocates,butmayformthebasisofajudgementwhetheramajorityverdict,or,
veryexceptionally,aWatsondirectionshouldbegiven,orthejurydischarged.
Ifthejuryseeksareminderofevidence,theambitoftherequestshouldbeascertainedand,ifnecessary,
theassistanceoftheadvocatessoughttoensurethatthenoteofevidenceisthebestavailable.
7. Summing Up Checklist
FormereditionsoftheBenchbookcontainedahelpfulchecklistofusualandcommonlegaldirections.We
hopethattheContentspagesabovewillperformthesamefunction.
10. Jury Management
Inaworkwhichisdevotedtosummingupithasnotbeenpossibletocoverallaspectsofjury
managementwhichwillconfrontjudges.However,HHJudgeInigoBinghaswrittenavaluablepractical
guidetotheroleandmanagementofthejury,LawandPracticeRelatingtotheJuryinCriminalTrials,
recentlypostedintheCriminale-libraryontheJSBTrainingWebsite.
8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 2: introDuctory worDs at the
coMMenceMent oF trial
ForselectionofandchallengetothejuryseeChapter18JuryManagement.
Thejudgesfrstopportunitytointroducethejurytotheirtaskcomeswhenthedefendanthasbeenputin
theirchargeandbeforetheprosecutionopensitscase.
Whatisrequiredisanexplanationofthejurysresponsibilities:
1. Thejurywillbeaskedtoreturnaunanimousverdict.Itistheircollectiveviewoftheevidencewhichwill
alonedeterminetheirverdict.Theyshoulddiscusstheevidenceonlywhenall12jurorsarepresentinthe
juryroom.
2. Forthesamereason,jurorsshouldnotdiscussthecasewithanyone,notleastfamilyandfriendswhose
viewstheytrust,whentheyareawayfromcourt,eitherfacetoface,oroverthetelephone,orover
theinternetviachatlinesor,forexample,FacebookorMySpace.Iftheyweretodosotheywouldrisk
disclosinginformationwhichisconfdentialtothejury.Eachjurorowesadutyofconfdentialitytothe
others,tothepartiesandtothecourt.Furthermore,iftheyweretodiscussthecasewithothersthey
wouldrisk,consciouslyornot,bringingsomeoneelsesviewstotheirconsiderationoftheevidence.If
anyoneshouldpersistintryingtoengageajurorinconversationaboutthecasethemattershouldbe
reportedassoonaspossibletothejudge.
3. Ifthecaseisonewhichhasinthepastormayduringthetrialattractmediaattention,thejuryshould
rememberthatthereportisonlytheauthorsversionofpastevents.Itisthejuryalonewhichhearsthe
evidenceuponwhichtheymustreachtheirverdict.Theyshouldthereforetakecaretoensurethatthey
donotallowsuchsecond-handreportingorcommenttoinfuencetheirapproachtotheevidence.
4. Wehaveasystemofopenjusticeinwhichthepartiesthemselvesdecidewhatevidencetoadduceat
trial.Itisuponthatevidencealonethatthejurymustreachtheirverdict.Theyshouldnottoseekfurther
informationabout,orrelevantto,thecasefromanysourceoutsidecourt,includingtheinternet(e.g.
Google).Iftheyweretodosoitwouldbeunfairtotheprosecutionandthedefencebecauseneither
wouldbeawareoftheresearchanditsresultsand,therefore,wouldbeunabletorespondtoit.
5. Shouldanyjurorhaveconcerns,atanytimeduringthetrial,includingduringtheirretirement,aboutany
aspectofhisorherjuryservicewhicharesuffcientlyimportanttodrawtothejudgesattention,thejuror
shouldsendanotetothejudgeviatheirusherorbailiffassoonaspossible.Concernscommunicatedafter
thetrialisoverareexpressedtoolateforthejudgetoassist.
Thejuryshouldbetoldthatthesedirectionsapplythroughoutthetrialandateachadjournment,even
thoughtheymaynotberepeated.Thereareseveralothermatterswhichthejudgecanusefullycoverinhis
introductoryremarks.Somemayberequiredbythecircumstancesofthecase:
6. Wherethejudgehasauthorisedsecurityarrangementsforthejury,theywillneedanexplanation.
Thejuryshouldbetoldthatthearrangementsmadearenotunusualandhavenobearingupontheir
considerationofthecase.
7. Thejuryshouldnotvisitthesceneoftheallegedoffence(exceptonaviewarrangedbythecourt).
2: introDuctory worDs at the coMMenceMent oF trial
10
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. SeeChapter4(6)TrialintheAbsenceoftheDefendantand(7)TrialofOneDefendantintheAbsenceof
Another
Otherswilldependuponthepreferenceordiscretionofthejudge,forexample:
9. Anexplanationofthehoursofsitting,stagesandlikelyprogressofthetrial.
10. Theestimatedlengthofthetrial.
11. Acomparisonbetweentheresponsibilityofthejudgeforthelawandthefairnessandgoodorderofthe
trial,andofthejuryforalljudgementsupontheevidence.
12. Thejudgewillconsiderapplicationsrelatingtolegalmattersintheabsenceofthejury,preferablyata
convenienttimewhichdoesnotinterferewiththeprogressoftheevidencebeforethejury.
13. Theneedtopostponefnaljudgementontheevidenceuntiltheevidenceiscomplete.
14. Theabilitytoseekfurtherinformationbyanotetothejudge.
15. Whilethejurycanmakenotesiftheywish,thejudgewillbekeepinganoteinordertosummarisethe
evidenceinsummingup.
16. Thejudgesintentiontoprovidecomfortbreaksmorningandafternoon.Ajurorsabilitytorequesta
breakifneeded.
17. Arrangements,ifany,toenablesmokerstosmokeduringabreak.Ifnoneispossible,forexamplewhere
thejuryiskepttogetherforsecurityreasons,adviceonalternativemeasures,suchasnicotinebased
substitutes.
16
Sources:
OConnorandMirza[2004]UKHL2atparas125and126
ConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirectionparaIV.42,seeChapter18JuryManagement(1)EmpanellingtheJury
Marshall[2007]EWCACrim35
Prime[1973]57CrAppR632
Davis[2001]1CrAppR115
Karakaya[2005]EWCACrim346
Comerford[1998]1WLR191,[1998]1CrAppR235
Thakrar[2008]EWCACrim2359
Archbold4-254;4-264a-265;BlackstoneD13.18,Appendix5
Footnotes
16
Althoughthesetopicsforexplanation,917,arelistedasdiscretionary,theyallconcernthejurysunderstandingoftheprocessof
trial,theirroleinitandthearrangementswhichcanbemadefortheircomfortand,forthatreason,mayberegardedasimportant.
11
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 3: Fitness to pleaD anD stanD
trial
Introduction
Itisforthejudgetodecidewhetherthedefendantisfttopleadandstandhistrialundersection4(5)Criminal
Procedure(Insanity)Act1964assubstitutedbytheDomesticViolence,CrimeandVictimsAct2004.Where
afndingofunftnessismade,section4A(2)ofthe1964Actrequiresthetrialofanissuebya(orthe)jury
whethertheyaresatisfed,asrespectsthecountoreachofthecountsonwhichtheaccusedwastobeorwas
beingtried,thathedidtheactormadetheomissionchargedagainsthimastheoffence.
Directions
Thejudgeshouldexplaintothejuryhowtheissuearisesfortheirconsiderationandwhattheprosecution
needstoprovesothattheyaresure
17
beforesuchafndingcanbemade.Ifitisnotprovedthejurymust
returnaverdictofnotguilty.
Thesummingupoftheevidencewillbeconventionalsavethatthejurywillbeconcernedonlywiththeact
oromissionandnotwiththedefendantsstateofmind.
18
Itislikelythatinviewofthedefendantsincapacitythejurywillnothavethebeneftofthedefendants
evidence.Theremaybeothersourcesofevidence,helpfultothedefendant,towhichattentionshouldbe
drawn(e.g.hearsay,interviews).
Joint Trials
InBandOthers
19
theCourtofAppealdirected,duringaninterlocutoryappealfromapreliminaryhearing,that
theissueofcommissionofactsbytheunftD1andtheissuesofguiltofD2,D4andD5shouldbedecidedby
thesamejuryinonetrial,whereeachdefendantwasallegedtohavebeenconcernedinaringofchildabuse
andD1wassaidtohavebeenthecentralfgure.
Insuchacasethetrialjudgewillneedtobeparticularlycarefulthatthejuryunderstandsthedifference
betweentheissuesarisinginthecaseofeachdefendant.Furthermore,thejudgewillneedtoidentifyany
disadvantagetoanunftdefendantcausedbyhisinabilitytoparticipateinthetrial(e.g.wherethedefence
ofotherdefendantsiscutthroat)whilepreservingtheentitlementofotherdefendantstoafullconsideration
oftheirevidence,or,anydisadvantagetoaftdefendantfromtheabsencefromthewitnessboxoftheunft
defendant.Carefulconsiderationofsubmissionsmadebycounselbeforethesummingupwillberequired.
Footnotes
17
Theproceedingsandtheburdenandstandardofproofarecriminal:Chal[2008]1CrAppR18,[2007]EWCACrim2647
18
Antoine[2001]1AC340http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/20.html
19
[2008]EWCACrim1997
3:fitness to plead and stand trial
12
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sources
SeetheobservationsofThomasLJinLeslieNorman[2008]EWCACrim1810uponthedutiesofthecourtwhen
itbecomesapparentthatthedefendantisunft,andthecommentarybyProfessorOrmerodintheJSBOnline
(criminal)e-letterforOctoberandNovember2008.
Archbold4-166a/185;BlackstoneD12.2/15.
13
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 4: preliMinary Directions oF
law
(1) Child Defendants
Introduction
Childrenaged10yearsoroverbutundertheageof14yearsarenowtobetreatedforthepurposesof
capacitytocommitcriminaloffencesinthesamewayaschildrenaged14andover.Section34Crimeand
DisorderAct1998abolishedthedefenceofdoliincapaxforthoseaged10-13.
20
Neverthelesstheageofachildoverorunder14yearsislikelytoremainarelevantfactorforthejurywhen
consideringoffencesrequiringaspecifcintentorsubjectiverecklessness(e.g.foresightofconsequences),
oradefencewithasubjectiveelement,orwhereageisacharacteristicrelevanttoanassessmentof
reasonableness.(e.g.defencesofprovocation,duress,selfdefence).
Discussionwithcounselwillberequiredtoidentifyrelevance.
Directions
Wheretheyoungageofthedefendantisarelevantconsiderationforthejury,thejudgeshouldidentifythe
issuetowhichageisrelevanttogetherwithitsevidentialcontext.
Sources
Archbold1-91;4-73;BlackstoneA3.39
[NoteCPSvP[2007]EWHC946(Admin)forconsiderationsrelevanttoanapplicationforstaybaseduponevidence
ofyouthandincapacity.]
Footnotes
20
JTB[2009]UKHL20
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
14
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Separation of Roles
Introduction
Thepurposeofthesepreliminaryremarksinthesummingupistoensurethatthejuryunderstandsthe
differencebetweentheresponsibilitiesofthejudge,thejuryandadvocates.
Directions
Whatisrequiredisanexplanationthat:
Thejudgewillexplainthelawwhichthejuryshouldapplyandwillmakeitclearwhenheisprovidinga
directionoflaw.[Thatexplanationwillconcerntwoformsoflegaldirection.Thefrstconcernstheelements
oftheoffencechargedandthematterstheprosecutionmustprove.Thesecondconcernstheapproachthe
juryshouldtaketosomeaspectsoftheevidence.]
Thejudgewillsummarisetheevidence;thejurymustdecideallissuesoffact.Asummary,ofnecessity,
involvesselection.Thejurymustdecidethecaseonalltheevidence.Assessmentofreliability,truthfulness,
importanceandweightofevidenceisforthejuryalone.
Whilethejudgemay/willcommentontheevidence(forexample,inidentifyingthefactualissueswhich
thejurywillneedtoresolve)thejuryshouldnotadoptanyviewtheythinkthejudgemayhaveaboutthe
evidenceunless,independently,theyreachthesameview.
Otherdirections/advicewhichmayassistinaparticularcaseincludethefollowing:
Theevidenceiscompleteanditisnotpossibletohearmore.Thejuryshouldnotspeculateaboutevidence
whichhasnotbeengivenandtheyshoulddecidethecaseontheevidencewhichtheyhaveseenand
heard.
Thejuryisnotentitledtoseethestatementsofwitnesses(unlessinspecialcircumstancesthestatementhas
beenexhibitedandthejudgedecidestheyshouldtakeitwiththemtothejuryroom).
Isthereanyroomformistake,ormustonesideortheotherbelying?
Itisnotnecessarytodecideeverydisputedissueoffact.Itmaynotbepossibletodoso.Thereareoften
looseends.Thejurystaskistodecidewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedtheelementsoftheoffence
charged.
Theadvocateshavemadesubmissionstothejuryastowhatevidencetheyshouldacceptandwhat
conclusionstheyshouldreach.Thesearemattersforthejury.Havingconsideredtheargumentsonboth
sidestheycanacceptorrejectanyoneormoreofthemastheythinkright.
Thejudgewillbeprovidingthejurywithwrittendirectionsoflaw/aRoutetoVerdict.Writtendirections
arenotasubstituteforallthejudgeslegaldirectionsinhissummingupbuttheywillcontain......TheRoute
toVerdictisasequenceofquestionsposedinalogicalandnecessarysequence.Thejuryshouldapproach
eachquestioninturnasdirected.Theyshouldreachadecisiononthefrstquestionbeforetheyturntothe
next,andsoon.Iftheydo,theywillhaveaddressedalltheelementsoftheoffenceandthedefenceraised
necessarytoreachtheirverdict.
1S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ifthejurywishestoberemindedofanypartoftheevidence,whetherthejudgehasmentioneditinhis
summaryornot,thejuryneedonlysendhimarequestinawrittennoteandhewillcallthembacktocourt
forthepurpose.
Thenatureoftheevidencehasbeensuchastoexcitefeelingsofangerorsympathy.Whenitcomesto
makingjudgementsabouttheevidenceanddecidingupontheirverdictthejuryshouldputemotionaside
andembraceafair,carefulandreasonedapproachtotheevidence.
1o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Burden and Standard of Proof
Directions
Adirectionconcerningtheburdenandstandardofproofisrequiredineverysummingup.
When the Legal Burden is on the Prosecution
Theburdenofprovingthecaserestsupontheprosecution.
Thedefendantbearsnoburdenofprovinganythinganditisnothistasktoprovehisinnocence.
Thefactthatadefendanthasgivenevidencedoesnotimplyanyburdenuponhimtoprovehisinnocence.
Thejurywill,however,needtoreachadecisionaboutwhatreliancetheycanplaceonthedefendants
evidence.Theyshould,whendecidinguponthetruth,reliabilityandaccuracyoftheevidence,adoptthe
samefairapproachtoeverywitness.
Standard of Proof
Theprosecutionprovesitscaseifthejury,havingconsideredalltheevidencerelevanttothechargetheyare
considering,aresurethatthedefendantisguilty.Furtherexplanationisunwise.
21
Ifthejuryarenotsuretheymustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
Note: Beingsureisthesameasentertainingnoreasonabledoubt.SeeArchbold4-384/385;BlackstoneF3.37-39,for
adiscussionofterms.
When the Legal Burden is on the Defence
Theburdenofprovingthematterinissueisonthedefendant.
Standard of Proof
Thedefendantprovesthematterinissueifthejuryconclude,havingconsideredalltherelevantevidence,that
thematterassertedismoreprobable(ormorelikely)thannot.
Note: ForthedistinctionbetweenalegalandanevidentialburdenandtheapplicationoftheHumanRightsAct
1998toissuesofconstruction,seeArchbold(2009)4-381-383,388,389,16-77,78andBlackstoneF3.1/36.
Note: Whereanevidentialburdenisplaceduponthedefence(e.g.toraisesuffcientevidenceofselfdefenceorduress
fortheissuetobelefttothejury)anddischarged,thelegalburdenremainsontheprosecutiontoproveitscaseso
thatthejuryissureofguilt.
Footnotes
21
NotetheproblemsencounteredinMajid[2009]EWCACrim2563whenthejudgeendeavouredtoexplainreasonabledoubtto
thejury
17
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Separate Consideration of Counts and/or Defendants
Introduction
Wherethereismorethanonecountintheindictmentormorethanonedefendantischargedinthe
indictmentanditislegallypossibleforthejurytoreachmixedverdicts,adirectiondrawingattentiontothe
needforseparateconsiderationisrequired.
Direction
Thejurymustreturnseparateverdictsuponeachcountandeachdefendant.Inordertodoso,thejurymust
decidewhethertheprosecutionhasproveditscaseoneachcountinrespectofeachdefendant.
Note:
(1) Thewholecasemayappeartoturnupontheresolutionofasingleissueoruponthenarrowassessmentofa
singlewitness.Ifso,thejudgeisentitledwhengivingthisdirectiontorecognisethecommonsenseofthejurys
task.Wherethejudgeintendstopointoutthatthecountsappeartostandorfalltogethertheadvocatesshould
beconsultedfrst.Wheneveritislegallypossibleformixedverdictstobereturnedthejuryshouldbedirectedthat
itisforthemtodecidewhetherthecountsdoinfactstandorfalltogether.
(2) Theevidenceononecountmaybeadmissibleinsupportofproofofanothercount.Ifso,itdoesnotnecessarily
followthattheverdictsonbothcountswillbethesameandthedirectionshouldstillbegiven.(see Chapter 12
Cross Admissibility)
SeeArchbold7-70/72;BlackstoneD25.22forInconsistentVerdicts
18
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Specimen Counts
Introduction
Specimencountsareincludedintheindictmentintwocircumstances:
(1) Wheretheprosecutionreliesuponacourseofconductbythedefendant,duringwhichhecommits
severaloffences,butisunabletosupplyparticularsofeachoffence,itmayincludeintheindictmenta
specimencountallegingasingleoffencecommittedonasingleoccasionfallingbetweenaspanofdates
whenthecourseofconductwastakingplace.
(2) Wherethereisamultiplicityofallegedoffenceswhichtheprosecutioncouldseparatelychargeifit
wished,butchoosenottointheinterestsofamanageabletrial,itmayselectalessernumberofspecifc
offencesandchargethemasspecimensorsamples.
Where,forexample,achildcomplainsofsexualabuseofthesametypeoveraperiodofyearsbutisunspecifc
aboutoccasions,theprosecutionmaychargespecimenoffencesrefectingtheageofthechildduringeach
yearinwhichtheoffenceswerecommitted.
Where,forexample,afnancedirector,allegedlystealsmoneyfromacompanyoveraperiodoftime,using
thesamemethodondifferentoccasions,theprosecutionmaychoosetochargespecimenoffencesrefecting
themethodusedthroughouttheperiod.
Inbothexamplestheeffectoflayingaspecimencountistoinvitethejurytoconcludethatthesingleoffence
ofitstypechargedwascommittedduringtheperiodidentifedinthatcount.Theprosecutionisrelyingon
evidenceofacourseofconduct(orsystem)toproveasinglespecimenoffence.
Thedefendantmusthavesuffcientparticularsoftheoffenceallegedagainsthimtoknowthecasehehasto
meet.Subjecttorule14.2(2)CPR,itisnotpermissibletochargemorethanoneoffenceinthesamecount.If
theprosecutionreliesonaspecifcincidentasrepresentativeofacourseofconductthedefendantisentitled
toknowwhichincidentisreliedupon.Particularsoftheindictmentmayberequired.
Adefendantcanbesentencedonlyforoffenceswhichheadmitsorofwhichheisfoundguiltybyajury
(butseeNotesbelow).Thefactthatacountiscalledspecimendoesnotonconvictionenablethecourtto
sentencefortheseveraloffencesallegedlyembracedbythespecimensincetheyhavenotallbeenthesubject
ofaverdictbythejury;onlyoneofthemhas.
22
Thus,itisnecessaryfortheindictmenttocontainasuffcient
numberofspecimencountstorefectthecriminalityalleged.Toachievethis,theprosecutionmaychargein
respectofanyoneperiodmorethanonespecimenoffence.Inthecaseoftheallegedsexualoffender,each
furtherspecimenmaybedistinguishedbytheadditionofsuchwordsasonafurtheroccasionbetween....
and....Inthecaseoftheallegeddishonestfnancedirector,theprosecutionwillchargeagreaternumberof
specifcoffencesdescribingthemasspecimens(orsamples)takenfromthecourseofconduct.Abalancewill
needtobestruckbetweenoverloadingtheindictmentandadequatelyrefectingthecriminalityalleged.
Footnotes
22
Canavan[1998]1WLR604,[1998]1CrAppR79
1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Itnotinfrequentlyhappensintheprosecutionofsexualoffencesagainstchildrenthat,inrespectofone
spanoftime,theprosecutionidentifesoneormorespecifcoffencesand,inaddition,reliesonacontinuing
courseofconduct.Insuchcircumstancesthejurywillberequiredtoconsider,inrespectofthesamecourseof
conduct,bothspecifcandspecimenallegationsofcriminality.Itwillbenecessaryforthejudgetoexplainto
thejuryhowtheevidencerelatestoeachcategoryofcharge.
ThismayrequireaNotetotheJury,forexample:
Count1:Complainantaged12,incidentofindecenttouching,occasionofholidayinBlackpool,inbedroomatB&B.
Count2:Complainantaged12,incidentofindecenttouching,ingarden,occasionofvisittorelativesinManchester.
Count3:Complainantaged12,specimencount,incidentofindecenttouching,inbedroomathomeinLeeds.
Count4:Complainantaged12,specimencount,atleastonefurtherincidentofindecenttouching,inbedroomat
homeinLeeds.
Count5:Complainantaged12,specimencount,anincidentofcausingmasturbation,inlivingroomathomein
Leeds.
Count6:Complainantaged12,specimencount,atleastonefurtherincidentofcausingmasturbation,inlivingroom
athomeinLeeds.
Count7:Complainantaged13......andsoon.
Directions
Thejudgesdirectionstothejuryshouldtherefore:
Explainwhythespecimencountshavebeenincludedintheindictment,i.e.eithertomakethetrialmore
manageableorbecausetheprosecutionisunabletoidentifyeachseparateoccasiononwhichanoffence
wascommitted,orboth;and
Informthejurywhetherandtowhatextentthecourseofconductevidenceisadmissibletoprovethe
specimencounts;and
Explainthatwhetherornottheyacceptthecourseofconductevidenceinitsentirety,theymustbesure
thattheoffencechargedasaspecimen(orsample)count,orthefurtherspecimen(orsample)offence,
whichtheyareconsideringisproved.
20
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Note 1
(1) Rule 14.2(2) Criminal Procedure Rules 2005 provides a new rule for the inclusion in one count of
more than one offence committed during a course of conduct:
Criminal Procedure Rules
14.2 Form and content of indictment
(2)Morethanoneincidentofthecommissionoftheoffencemaybeincludedinacountifthose
incidentstakentogetheramounttoacourseofconducthavingregardtothetime,placeor
purposeofcommission.
The Consolidated Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings) IV.34.10-14 (amendment 2007)
contains the following guidance on the use of the rule:
Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction
Multiple offending: count charging more than one incident
(IV.34.10)Rule14.2(2)oftheCriminalProcedureRulesallowsasinglecounttoallegemorethan
oneincidentofthecommissionofanoffenceincertaincircumstances.Eachincidentmustbeof
thesameoffence.Thecircumstancesinwhichsuchacountmaybeappropriateinclude,butarenot
limitedto,thefollowing:
(a) the victim on each occasion was the same, or there was no identifable individual
victimas,forexample,inacaseoftheunlawfulimportationofcontrolleddrugsorofmoney
laundering;
(b) theallegedincidentsinvolvedamarkeddegreeofrepetitioninthemethodemployedor
intheirlocation,orboth;
(c) the alleged incidents took place over a clearly defned period, typically (but not
necessarily)nomorethanaboutayear;
(d) in any event, the defence is such as to apply to every alleged incident without
differentiation.Wherewhatisinissuediffersbetweendifferentincidents,asinglemultiple
incidentscountwillnotbeappropriate,thoughitmaybeappropriatetousetwoormore
suchcountsaccordingtothecircumstancesandtotheissuesraisedbythedefence.
(IV.34.11)EvenincircumstancessuchasthosesetoutinparagraphIV.34.8,theremaybeoccasions
onwhichaprosecutorchoosesnottousesuchacount,inordertobringthecasewithinsection
75(3)(a)oftheProceedsofCrimeAct2002(criminallifestyleestablishedbyconvictionofthreeor
moreoffencesinthesameproceedings):forexample,becausesection75(2)(c)ofthatActdoesnot
apply(criminallifestyleestablishedbyanoffencecommittedoveraperiodofatleastsixmonths).
WheretheprosecutorproposessuchacourseitisunlikelythatPart1oftheCriminalProcedure
Rules(theoverridingobjective)willrequireanindictmenttocontainasinglemultipleincidents
countinplaceofalargernumberofcounts,subjecttothegeneralprinciplessetoutinparagraph
IV.34.3.
21
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(IV.34.12) For some offences, particularly sexual offences, the penalty for the offence may have
changedduringtheperiodoverwhichtheallegedincidentstookplace.Insuchacase,additional
multiple incidents counts should be used so that each count only alleges incidents to which the
samemaximumpenaltyapplies.
(IV.34.13)Insomecases,suchasmoneylaunderingortheft,therewillbedocumentedevidenceof
individualincidentsbutthesheernumberofthesewillmakeitdesirabletocovertheminasingle
count.Wheretheindictmentcontainsacountallegingmultipleincidentsofthecommissionofsuch
offences,andduringthecourseofthetrialitbecomesclearthatthejurymaybringinaverdictin
relationtoalesseramountthanthatallegedbytheprosecution,itwillnormallybedesirabletodirect
thejurythattheyshouldreturnapartialverdictwithreferencetothatlesseramount.
(IV.34.14)Inothercases,suchassexualorphysicalabuse,acomplainantmaybeinapositiononly
to give evidence of a series of similar incidents without being able to specify when or the precise
circumstancesinwhichtheyoccurred.Inthesecases,amultipleincidentscountmaybedesirable.If
ontheotherhand,thecomplainantisabletoidentifyparticularincidentsoftheoffencebyreference
toadateorotherspecifcevent,butallegesthatinadditiontherewereotherincidentswhichthe
complainantisunabletospecify,thenitmaybedesirabletoincludeseparatecountsfortheidentifed
incidents and a multiple incidents count or counts alleging that incidents of the same offence
occurredmanytimes.Usingamultipleincidentscountmaybeanappropriatealternativetousing
specimencountsinsomecaseswhererepeatedsexualorphysicalabuseisalleged.Thechoiceof
countwilldependontheparticularcircumstancesofthecaseandshouldbedeterminedbearingin
mindtheimplicationsforsentencingsetoutinRvCanavan;RvKidd;RvShaw[1998]1CrAppR79.
In practice, a count charging multiple offences will be used only where the reality is that it is all or
nothing. Whenever the conduct complained of is different between incidents or the defendant has
a different explanation to give, the use of a multiple offence count will serve to confuse rather than
clarify.
FordiscussionseeArchbold1-139/144;BlackstoneD11.32.
Note 2
The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (in force 8 January 2007), sections 17-20, makes
provision for the trial of sample counts by a jury and, following conviction, of the remainder by a
judge see Archbold 4-267h-k; Blackstone D13.72. The Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction (CP)
IV.34.4-9 provides guidance as to the procedure to be adopted:
Multiple offending: trial by jury and then by judge alone
(IV.34.4)Undersections17to21oftheDomesticViolence,CrimeandVictimsAct2004thecourtmay
orderthatthetrialofcertaincountswillbebyjuryintheusualwayand,ifthejuryconvicts,thatother
associatedcountswillbetriedbyjudgealone.Theuseofthispowerislikelytobeappropriatewhere
justice cannot be done without charging a large number of separate offences and the allegations
againstthedefendantappeartofallintodistinctgroupsbyreferencetotheidentityofthevictim,
byreferencetothedatesoftheoffences,orbysomeotherdistinctioninthenatureoftheoffending
conductalleged.
(IV.34.5)Insuchacaseitisessentialtomakeclearfromtheoutsettheassociationassertedbythe
prosecutorbetweenthosecountstobetriedbyajuryandthosecountswhichitisproposedshould
betriedbyjudgealone,ifthejuryconvictontheformer.Aspecialformofindictmentisprescribedfor
thispurpose.
22
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(IV.34.6)Anorderforsuchatrialmaybemadeonlyatapreparatoryhearing.Itfollowsthatwhere
theprosecutorintendstoinvitethecourttoordersuchatrialitwillnormallybeappropriateto
proceedasfollows.ThedraftindictmentservedunderCriminalProcedureRule14.1(1)shouldbe
intheformappropriatetosuchatrial.ItshouldbeaccompaniedbyanapplicationunderCriminal
ProcedureRule15.1forapreparatoryhearing.Thiswillensurethatthedefendantisawareatthe
earliest possible opportunity of what the prosecution propose and of the proposed association
ofcountsintheindictment.Itisundesirableforadraftindictmentintheusualformtobeserved
wheretheprosecutorexpectstoapplyforatwostagetrialandhence,ofnecessity,forpermission
toamendtheindictmentatalaterstageinorderthatitmaybeinthespecialform.
(IV.34.7) On receipt of a draft two part indictment a Crown Court offcer should sign it at the
endofPartTwo.Atthestartofthepreparatoryhearingthedefendantshouldbearraignedon
allcountsinPartOneoftheindictment.ArraignmentonPartTwoneednottakeplaceuntilafter
therehasbeeneitheraguiltypleato,orfndingofguilton,anassociatedcountinPartOneofthe
indictment.
(IV.34.8)Iftheprosecutionapplicationissuccessful,theprosecutorshouldprepareanabstractof
theindictment,containingthecountsfromPartOneonly,foruseinthejurytrial.Preparationof
suchanabstractdoesnotinvolveamendmentoftheindictment.Itisakintowhereadefendant
pleadsguiltytocertaincountsinanindictmentandisputinthechargeofthejuryontheremaining
countsonly.
(IV.34.9) If the prosecution application for a two stage trial is unsuccessful, the prosecutor may
apply to amend the indictment to remove from it any counts in Part Two which would make
jurytrialonthewholeindictmentimpracticableandtoreverttoastandardformofindictment.
Itwillbeamatterforthecourtwhetherarraignmentonoutstandingcountstakesplaceatthe
preparatoryhearing,oratafuturedate.
Sources
ForthepracticeofspecimenchargesandtheimplicationsforsentencingseeArchbold1-131,132;5-68;Blackstone
D11.33-35;D19.56-58.
23
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(6) Trial in the Absence of The Defendant
Introduction
Exceptionally,atrialmayproceedinthedefendantsabsencebecausehe:
1. Misbehavesincourt;
2.Istooilltotravel;
3.Voluntarilyabsentshimselffromhistrial.
Misbehaviour
23

Thejudgewillusuallyadjournuntilthedefendanthashadtimetorefect,andthetrialwillberesumed
whenhegivesanassuranceastohisfuturebehaviour.If,forcompellingreasons,thetrialmustcontinue,the
defendantwillusuallyreturntocourtaftertimeforrefection.
24
Illness
25
Adefendantwhoisinvoluntarilyunfttoattendtrialisentitledtobepresentandthecaseshouldbeadjourned
untilheisft,orthejurydischargedifthatisnotpossible.If,however,thedefendantconsents,orthetrial
canproceedwithoutprejudicetothedefendant(e.g.inamulti-handedcase,bycallingevidencewhichdoes
notaffectthedefendant),thetrialjudgehasadiscretiontoproceed,butthediscretionshouldbeexercised
sparingly.
Voluntary Absence
In Hayward
26
the Court of Appeal (Rose LJ, Vice-President) set out the principles to be followed:
22.Inourjudgment,inthelightofthesubmissionswhichwehaveheardandtheEnglishandEuropean
authoritiestowhichwehavereferred,theprincipleswhichshouldguidetheEnglishcourtsinrelationtothe
trialofadefendantinhisabsencearethese:
1. Adefendanthas,ingeneral,arighttobepresentathistrialandarighttobelegallyrepresented.
2. Thoserightscanbewaived,separatelyortogether,whollyorinpart,bythedefendanthimself.They
maybewhollywaivedif,knowing,orhavingthemeansofknowledgeasto,whenandwherehistrialis
totakeplace,hedeliberatelyandvoluntarilyabsentshimselfand/orwithdrawsinstructionsfromthose
representing him. They may be waived in part if, being present and represented at the outset, the
defendant,duringthecourseofthetrial,behavesinsuchawayastoobstructthepropercourseofthe
proceedingsand/orwithdrawshisinstructionsfromthoserepresentinghim.
Footnotes
23
LeeKun[1916]1KB337atpage341;[1916]11CrAppR293atpage300
24
Anaccusedshouldnotbehandcuffedinthedockunlessthereisarealriskofviolenceorescapeandthereisnoalternativeto
visiblerestraint.Ifheishandcuffedthejurywillrequireaspecifcdirectionthatitisanirrelevantconsiderationwhichnotbeheld
againsthim(Horden[2009]EWCACrim388).
25
Howson[1981]74CrAppR172
26
[2001]QB862,[2001]EWCACrim168at22
4: preliMinary direCtions of law 4: preliMinary direCtions of law
24
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Thetrialjudgehasadiscretionastowhetheratrialshouldtakeplaceorcontinueintheabsenceofa
defendantand/orhislegalrepresentatives.
4. Thatdiscretionmustbeexercisedwithgreatcareanditisonlyinrareandexceptionalcasesthatitshould
beexercisedinfavourofatrialtakingplaceorcontinuing,particularlyifthedefendantisunrepresented.
5. Inexercisingthatdiscretion,fairnesstothedefenceisofprimeimportancebutfairnesstotheprosecution
mustalsobetakenintoaccount.Thejudgemusthaveregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecaseincluding,
inparticular:
(i) the nature and circumstances of the defendants behaviour in absenting himself from the trial or
disruptingit,asthecasemaybeand,inparticular,whetherhisbehaviourwasdeliberate,voluntaryand
suchasplainlywaivedhisrighttoappear;
(ii)whetheranadjournmentmightresultinthedefendantbeingcaughtorattendingvoluntarilyand/or
notdisruptingtheproceedings;
(iii)thelikelylengthofsuchanadjournment;
(iv)whetherthedefendant,thoughabsent,is,orwishestobe,legallyrepresentedatthetrialorhas,by
hisconduct,waivedhisrighttorepresentation[seebelow];
(v)whetheranabsentdefendantslegalrepresentativesareabletoreceiveinstructionsfromhimduring
thetrialandtheextenttowhichtheyareabletopresenthisdefence;
(vi)theextentofthedisadvantagetothedefendantinnotbeingabletogivehisaccountofevents,having
regardtothenatureoftheevidenceagainsthim;
(vii)theriskofthejuryreachinganimproperconclusionabouttheabsenceofthedefendant;
(viii)theseriousnessoftheoffence,whichaffectsdefendant,victimandpublic[seebelow];
(ix)thegeneralpublicinterestandtheparticularinterestofvictimsandwitnessesthatatrialshouldtake
placewithinareasonabletimeoftheeventstowhichitrelates;
(x)theeffectofdelayonthememoriesofwitnesses;
(xi)wherethereismorethanonedefendantandnotallhaveabsconded,theundesirabilityofseparate
trials,andtheprospectsofafairtrialforthedefendantswhoarepresent.
6. If the judge decides that a trial should take place or continue in the absence of an unrepresented
defendant, he must ensure that the trial is as fair as the circumstances permit. He must, in particular,
takereasonablesteps,bothduringthegivingofevidenceandinthesummingup,toexposeweaknesses
intheprosecutioncaseandtomakesuchpointsonbehalfofthedefendantastheevidencepermits.In
summinguphemustwarnthejurythatabsenceisnotanadmissionofguiltandaddsnothingtothe
prosecutioncase.[squarebracketeditalicsadded]
TheseobservationsreceivedtheapprovaloftheHouseofLordsinJones(Anthony)
27
savethatLord
BinghamqualifedtheVice-Presidentsreferencestotheseriousnessofthecaseandtothedesirabilityof
representationevenwherethedefendantisvoluntarilyabsent:
Footnotes
27
[2003]1AC1,[2002]UKHL5at14-15
2S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
14.First,Idonotthinkthattheseriousnessoftheoffence,whichaffectsdefendant,victimandpublic,
listedinparagraph22(5)(viii)asamatterrelevanttotheexerciseofdiscretion,isamatterwhichshould
be considered. The judges overriding concern will be to ensure that the trial, if conducted in the
absenceofthedefendant,willbeasfairascircumstancespermitandleadtoajustoutcome.These
objectsareequallyimportant,whethertheoffencechargedbeseriousorrelativelyminor.
15. Secondly,itisgenerallydesirablethatadefendantberepresentedevenifhehasvoluntarilyabsconded.
Thetaskofrepresentingattrialadefendantwhoisnotpresent,andwhomaywellbeoutoftouch,
is of course rendered much more diffcult and unsatisfactory, and there is no possible ground for
criticisingthelegalrepresentativeswhowithdrewfromrepresentingtheappellantattrialinthiscase.
Butthepresencethroughoutthetrialoflegalrepresentatives,inreceiptofinstructionsfromtheclient
atsomeearlierstage,andwithnoobjectotherthantoprotecttheinterestsofthatclient,doesprovide
avaluablesafeguardagainstthepossibilityoferrorandoversight.Forthisreasontrialjudgesroutinely
askcounseltocontinuetorepresentadefendantwhohasabscondedduringthetrial,andcounselin
practiceaccedetosuchaninvitationanddefendtheirabsentclientasbesttheyproperlycaninthe
circumstances.
28
Directions
Ifthetrialistoproceedinthedefendantsabsence,thatfactshouldbeexplainedtothejury,assoonas
possible,inappropriateterms.Whenthejudgehasruledthatthedefendanthasvoluntarilyabsented
himselfhewillnotinformthejuryofthatfactandwillneedtowarnthejuryagainst:
1. speculatinguponthereasonforthedefendantsabsence;
2. treatingthedefendantsabsenceasanysupportfortheprosecutioncase.
29
Thesedirectionsshouldberepeatedduringthesummingup.
Dependinguponthestageofthetrialatwhichthedefendanthasabsentedhimself,thejurymayalsobe
toldthatasamatteroffactthedefendanthasgivennoevidencewhichiscapableofcontradictingthe
evidencegivenbywitnessesfortheprosecution.
If,however,thedefendanthasabsentedhimselfbeforebeinggiventhewarningundersection35
CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct1994(inferencesfromsilenceattrial)noinferenceadversetothe
defendantcanbedrawnfromhisfailuretogiveevidenceandthejuryshouldbesodirected.Onlyifthe
warningwasgivenandthedefendantmadehiselectionnottogiveevidenceisanadverseinference
available.
Ifthedefendantgaveanaccountininterviewwhichwaspartlyselfservingitisadmissibleastothetruthofthe
mattersstated(SeealsoConfessionsChapter15TheDefendantsStatementsandBehaviour,(1)Confessions).
Footnotes
28
MrJonesArt6applicationtotheECtHRwasdeclaredtobemanifestlyill-founded(JonesvUKAppnNo30900/02).Hehadchosen
tobeabsentfromhistrialandhadnotappliedtoadvanceevidencebeforetheCourtofAppealwhosehearingheattended.
29
If,asinOHare[2006]EWCACrim471,theabsentdefendantslegalteamwithdrawitwillbenecessarytoinformthejurythat
thetrialwillproceedintheirabsencealso.Iftheyremainitmaybenecessarytoexplaintheirlimitedrole,butthetermsofany
explanationshouldbediscussedwiththeadvocatesfrst.
2o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration defendant charged with offence of violence defence is self defence - defendant
absconds during trial no election not to give evidence defendant represented - partially self-serving
interview
AsItoldyouatthetimethedefendantwasfrstabsentfromcourt,itoccasionallyhappensthatajuryis
askednonethelesstoproceedtoreachaverdict.IrepeatwhatIthensaid,anditisimportant.Youmustnot
betemptedtospeculateastothereasonforthedefendantsabsence.Itisnotrelevanttoyourassessment
oftheevidencewhichyoumustjudgewithcare.Youshouldnottreatthedefendantsabsencefromcourt,
andneithershouldyoutreathisabsencefromthewitnessbox,asanysupportfortheprosecutioncase.
Thefactofhisabsencedoes,ofcourse,meanthatthereisnooralevidencefromhimwhichiscapableof
contradicting,orundermining,orexplainingtheevidencefortheprosecution.Counselforthedefendant
hastestedtheevidencebyquestionsputtothewitnessesandyouwilljudgetowhatextentthosequestions
elicitedanswershelpfultothedefendant.Thedefendantgaveanaccountininterviewwhichformedthe
basisofthosequestions.Headmittedusingviolencebutsaidthathewasactinginselfdefence.Youwill
appreciatethathisadmissionmaybesignifcantandweightybecauseitwasmadeagainstthedefendants
interests.Hewouldhardlyadmitusingviolenceunlessitwastruethathedid.Thatisforyoutojudge.On
theotherhand,hisclaimtohavebeenactinglawfullyinselfdefencewasnotmadeonanoccasionwhen
hewasgivingevidenceunderoathandithasnotbeentestedbyquestionsfromcounselfortheprosecution.
Nevertheless,theinterviewisevidenceinthecaseandyoushouldconsiderwhatthedefendantthenhadto
saywithcare.Pleaserememberthatthedefendantwasundernoobligationtocontributetothistrialorto
proveanythinginhisdefence.Theburdenremainsupontheprosecutiontoproveitscasesothatyouare
sure.
Sources
Archbold3-197/199a;BlackstoneD14.80/87
27
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(7) Trial of One Defendant in the Absence of Another
Introduction
Adefendantnamedintheindictmentmaynotbebeforethecourtbecausehehaspleadedguiltyorwillbe
separatelytried.
Sometimes,particularlybyagreementbetweentheparties,thefactofanabsentdefendantspleaofguilty,or
conviction,willbeadmittedtode-mystifythecurrentproceedings,butitwillbeofnoevidentialsignifcance
unlessrelevantasbelow.Ifthereisacontestedapplicationbytheprosecutiontoadmittheevidenceother
thanundersection74PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,itsprejudicialeffectislikelytobesuchthatit
shouldbeexcluded.
Evidencethataco-accusedhaspleadedguiltyorbeenconvictedonanotheroccasionmaybeadmissiblein
thecurrenttrialundersection74PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,subjecttothediscretiontoexclude
undersection78.
30
SuchevidencedoesnotattractthebadcharacterprovisionsoftheCriminalJusticeAct
2003becauseithastodowiththeoffencechargedagainstthedefendant.
31
Directions
Wherethefactofapleaofguiltybyanotherpersonnamedintheindictmentisnotadmittedinevidence,
orheistobeseparatelytried,thejuryshouldbetoldthattheyarenotrequiredtoreachaverdictinhis
caseandshouldnotspeculate.Theyshouldconcentrateontheevidenceinthecaseofthedefendant
theyareconsidering.
32
Wheretheguiltofanotherbecomesknowntothejurybutitisinadmissibleasevidenceagainstthe
defendant,thejuryshouldbeexplicitlydirectedtothateffect.
Whereevidenceofaconvictionisadmittedundersection74PACE1984thejurymustbetoldtowhat
extenttheevidenceisrelevanttotheirconsiderationofthedefendantscaseand,wherethereisariskthat
theconvictionmaybeusedforwiderpurposes,theyshouldbewarnedagainstit.
Footnotes
30
FortheexerciseofthediscretionseeArchbold9-89/90a;BlackstoneF11.8/9
31
Smith[2007]EWCACrim2105inwhich,however,theappealwasallowedonthegroundthattheadmissionoftheevidence
effectivelyclosedoutthedefence
32
FortheadmissionofevidenceofanoutofcourtstatementbyathirdpersonfororagainstanaccusedseeChapter15Defendants
StatementsandBehaviour(3)OutofCourtStatementsbyAnotherPersonasEvidenceFororAgainsttheDefendant
28
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration admission of D2s conviction for being concerned in the importation of controlled drugs
relevant in trial of D1 to a limited extent warning against use for wider purpose
You have heard that on an earlier occasion D2 pleaded guilty to the offence of being concerned in the
importationofacontrolleddrugofClassAcontrarytosection170CustomsandExciseManagementAct
1979.TheprosecutioncaseisthatD1wasconcernedinthesameimportation.However,thefactthatD2
tookpartintheimportationisnotevidencethatD1isalsoguilty.D2sconvictionisonlyrelevanttothe
extentthatitprovesthattherewasanillegalimportationofthecontrolleddrugandthatD2wasinvolvedin
it.Hisconvictionissuffcienttoestablishthosefactsbutitisforyoutodecidewhethertheyareproved.The
prosecutionseekstoproveD1sinvolvementbycircumstantialevidenceofhismovements,hismeetingswith
D2andothers,andhiscommunicationswithD2atsignifcantmomentsduringthemovementofthedrug.It
isuponthatevidencewhichyoumustdecidewhetheritisprovedthatD1wasinvolvedintheimportation.
Sources
Archbold9-82/97;BlackstoneF11.5/10
Forthenecessityforcarefuldirectionsaboutthepurposeforwhichevidenceadmittedundersection74may
beusedseeKempster[1989]1WLR1125;Boyson[1991]CrimLR274;Mahmood[1997]1CrAppR414,
[1997]CrimLR447
2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(8) Alternative Verdicts
Introduction
Itisgoodpracticeinthemajorityofcasestoincludeintheindictmentalessercountcontainingparticulars
ofanyalternativeverdictoffencethejudgeproposestoleavetothejury.Considerationwillusuallybegiven
toaddinganalternativeverdictcountbeforethejuryissworn.However,theneedforafurthercountmay
notbecomeapparentuntiltheevidenceisgiven.Ifso,adiscussionwiththeadvocateswillberequiredatthe
closeoftheprosecutioncase,oratthecloseofalltheevidence,toresolvethequestion.Ifthealternativeisnot
laidintheindictmentawrittenRoutetoVerdictsettingoutthejuryscorrectapproachisdesirable.Wherean
offencerequiringspecifcintentischarged(e.g.section18OffencesAgainstthePersonAct1861)andintentis
inissue,thealternative(section20)shouldbelefttothejury.
33
Directions
Whenever an alternative verdict is to be left to the jury an explanation is required.
Where the alternative is laid in the indictment Theprosecutiondoesnotaskthejurytoreturnaverdict
ofguiltyonbothcount1(themoreseriousoffence)andcount2(thelessseriousoffence)butuponone
ortheother.Thejuryshouldfrstconsidercount1.Iftheyaresuretheoffenceisproved,theirverdictwill
beguiltyandtheywillnotbeaskedforaverdictuponcount2.Iftheyarenotsuretheoffenceisproved,
theirverdictuponcount1willbenotguiltyandtheyshouldproceedtoconsidercount2.
Alternatively,
Where the alternative is not laid in the indictment Ifthejuryaresurethattheprosecutionhasproved
itscasetheirverdictwillbeguilty.If,however,theyarenotsure,theyshouldproceedtoconsiderthe
lesseralternative.
Ineithercaseitwillbenecessarytoexplaintheessentialingredientsofboththegreaterandthelesseroffence,
inparticularthedifferencesbetweenthem.
Sources
Archbold4-453/456,463;BlackstoneD18.41/66
Note: ForconsiderationoftheissuewhenanalternativeverdictshouldbelefttothejuryseeCoutts[2006]
UKHL39;Foster[2007]EWCACrim2869;Hodson[2009]EWCACrim1590
Footnotes
33
Hodson[2009]EWCACrim1590
30
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(9) Delay
Introduction
1. Aprolongeddelaybetweenthecommissionoftheallegedoffenceandthecomplaintleadingtotrialis
capableofaffectingthequalityoftheevidenceintwoways:
(1)Thememoryofwitnessesfadeswithtime;
(2)Linesofinquirymayhavebeenclosed,eitherbecauserecordshavebeenlostordestroyedorbecause
witnesseshavediedorcannolongerbetraced.
2. Delaybythecomplainantislikelytohavebeenexploredintheevidence.Thedefencemayrelyuponthe
passageoftimeinanattempttounderminethereliabilityofthecomplaint(seeChapter17(2)Allegations
ofHistoricalSexualAbuse).Inaddition,specifcrespectsinwhichdelayhaspermanentlyhampered
preparationofthedefencemayberevealed.Thelongestdelaysareencounteredincasesofalleged
sexualoffending.Thetrialjudgemaybeinvitedtoreviewthestateoftheevidenceatthecloseofthe
prosecutioncaseandtoimposeastay.
34
Thissectionconcernsthejudgesresponsibility,onceadecision
hasbeenmadethattheevidenceisfttobelefttothejury,toconfronttheexigenciesofdelayinhis
summingup.
3. InH(Henry)
35
theCourtofAppealcarriedoutareviewoftheauthorities,astheyconcernedthejudges
obligationtorefertodelayinhisdirections,ofwhichthefollowingispart
36
:
Dutton [1994] Crim.L.R. 910. That case involved uncorroborated allegations spreading over a period of
between20and14yearspriortocomplaintmade.Intheinterimanumberofwitnesseshaddiedwhocould
realisticallyhavebeenexpectedtoassistinrelationtothedefencewhichthedefendantputforward.The
decisionofthejudgetorejectanapplicationforastayonthegroundsofabuseofprocesswasconfrmed.
However,thesubmissionfortheappellantthatthejudgewaswrongnottoreferinhissumming-uptothe
ageofthecomplaintandthediffcultieswhichthatlapseoftimemaywellhaveoccasionedthedefencewas
acceptedandtheappealwasallowedonthatground.TheCourtstated:
....Such directions would surely be called for in a case where not only had there been substantial
delay but where it could be seen that witnesses who might have been able to give relevant evidence,
and a large number of them, had disappeared during the interval and accordingly there was the
clear possibility that the defence was not only prejudiced but seriously prejudiced as a result of not
being able to produce that evidence There is a difference between the point being made by
counsel and the submission which has been made by counsel being endorsed by the judge. It seems
to us that this was a case in which it really was incumbent upon the learned judge, having taken the
decision which he did at the outset of proceedings, to, at the end of the case, point out to the jury
that what was said by the defence about the possible prejudice to the defence as a result of the delay
was a matter to which they could, and should properly have regard.
Ifajudgeissilentinrelationtoatopicsuchasthatwhenithasbeenadvancedandcanvassedextensively
bythedefendant,theninacasesuchasthistheverysilenceofthelearnedjudgemaytendtodevalue
Footnotes
34
SeeSmolinski[2004]2CrAppR40,[2004]EWCACrim1270;B[2003]2CrAppR13,[2003]EWCACrim319;Mackreth(deceased)
[2009]EWCACrim1849
35
[1998]2CrAppR161;[1998]CrimLR409
36
Atpages164-168,perPotterLJ
31
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
whatwasineffectperhapsthemostimportantpointwhichcouldbeadvancedfromanadversarialpointof
viewonbehalfofthisappellant.
.......JohnE[1996]1Cr.App.R.88.Inthiscasetheallegationsrelatedtoevents17to23yearsbeforethetrial,
theallegedoffencesonlyhavinggivenrisetocomplaintfollowingafamilydisagreement....Specifcprejudice
was relied on. The appellants brothers, who were potential witnesses able to give the lie to or confrm
certainincidents,hadbothdiedintheinterim.Alsoawitnessattrialhadgravediffcultyinrememberinga
particularhighlightedincidentinthelightofthedelay.LordTaylorC.J.,havingnotedtheextremedelayof
20yearssaid:
.....Bearinginmindallthecircumstancesoftheallegations,thefactthattherewasaprevioustrialwhich
was inconclusive and the total absence from the summing-up, in the present case, of any reference to
diffcultieswhichthedefencemayhavehad,weconsiderthatthisconvictioncannotstand.We are not
saying that as a matter of law or as a matter of invariable practice whenever there had been some
delay in the case coming to trial the judge must give a jury directions as to the diffculties in which
the defence fnd themselves. Much must depend upon the length of the delay, the cogency of the
evidence and the circumstances in the case. Weconsiderthatinacaseofthisantiquity,withtheevidence
ofthecomplainantwhollyuncorroborated,itwasappropriateofthejudgetogiveadirectionofthekindwe
haveindicated.Hisfailuretodosointhecircumstancesweconsiderwasamisdirection.Itisuponthatbasis
thatweallowtheappeal.
.......It is apparent....that, in cases of this kind, each will fall for consideration on its own particular facts
andcircumstances,towhichthejudgessumming-upmustbeappropriate.......Comparisonofthevarious
decisionsalsosuggeststhatitwillbeunusualforaconvictiontoberegardedassafeinacasewherethere
hasbeennodirectionondiffcultieswhichthedefencecontendhavearisenfromthedelayinthemaking
ofthecomplaintsandthebringingofthecasestotrial.ItisultimatelynonethelessamatterforthisCourtto
decidewhethertheconvictionissafeinthelightofthelengthofthedelay,thecogencyoftheevidenceand
allthecircumstancesofthecase.Tothatextent,comparisonwiththefactsinothercasesisunlikelytobe
decisiveindecidingwhetherornottheabsenceofadirectionondelayisfataltotheconviction......
We consider it is plain upon the state of the authorities to which we have referred that it is desirable
in cases of substantial delay that some direction should be given to the jury on possible diffculties
with which the defence may have been faced as a result of such delay. Nonetheless, such a direction is
not to be regarded as invariably required except in cases where some signifcant diffculty or aspect
of prejudice is aired or otherwise becomes apparent to the judge in the course of the trial. Equally,
such a direction should be given in any case where it is necessary for the purposes of being even-
handed as between complainant and defendant. [boldemphasisadded]
4. InPercival
37
theCourtobservedthat,particularlywhenthecasewasfoundeduponalatecomplaintand
oraltestimony,prolongeddelay(28yearsinthatcase)mustthreatenthefairnessoftheproceedingsand,
beforeaconvictioncouldberegardedassafe,thecourtwouldneedtobesatisfedthatthejudgehad
confrontedthejurywiththedelayand:
(1)itsimpactonthepreparationandconductofthedefence;
(2)theprosecutionsdischargeoftheburdenandstandardofproof.
Footnotes
37
TheTimes,July201998
32
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Itwasnotappropriatetodiminishtheimpactofdelayonthefairnessofthetrialbyimplyingonlythat
thatthereweredisadvantagestobothsides;norwasitenoughsimplytorecitetheargumentsofcounsel
andallowthejurytodecidewhichtoprefer.
5. InM(Brian)
38
theVicePresident,RoseLJ,re-iteratedthatthetermsofthedirectionmustdependupon
theparticularcircumstancesofthecase:
Itistobenotedthat,inPercival,theCourtquashedtheappellantsconvictionsbecauseofdefciencies
in the summing-up in relation to delay and character. In relation to delay the Court said, frst, that the
summing-uphadwronglyequatedtheproblemsconfrontingprosecutionanddefencewithoutstressing
theneedforconscientiousconcernfortheburdenandstandardofproof;secondly,thejudgehadfailed
toputhisimprimaturonthesubmissionsofcounsel;andthirdly,thoughlesssignifcantly,thejudgehad
failedtoputoverthepointaboutdelaywhenreviewingtheevidenceofaparticularwitness.Thedirection
astocharacterwasunacceptablyterse.ItisapparentthatthejudgmentinPercivalwasdirectedtothe
summing-upinthatparticularcase.We fnd in the [Percival]judgment no attempt by the Court to lay
down principles of general application in relation to how judges should sum up in cases of delay
and we accordingly would wish to discourage the attempts being made, with apparently increasing
frequency, in applications and appeals to this Court, to rely on Percival as affording some sort of
blueprint for summings-up in cases of delay. It affords no such blueprint. Indeed in this area, as in
so many others, prescription by this Court as to the precise terms of a summing-up is best avoided.
Trial judges should tailor their directions to the circumstances of the particular case. In a case where
there have been many years of delay between the alleged offences and trial, a clear warning will
usually be desirable as to the impact which this may have had on the memories of witnesses and as
to the diffculties which may have resulted for the defence. The precise terms of that warning and
its relationship to the burden and standard of proof can be left to the good sense of trial judges
with appropriate help and guidance from the Judicial Studies Board. In some cases, however, such
a warning may be unnecessary and its absence, where the evidence is cogent, will not necessarily
render a conviction unsafe, particularly when counsels submissions at trial have not highlighted any
specifc risk of prejudice...[boldemphasisadded]
6. InE(T)
39
theCourtofAppealgaveareminderoftheneedforspecifcdirections.KeithJ,deliveringthe
judgmentofthecourt,said
40
:
.....while juries continue to decide questions of guilt, we must have confdence that they will make
allowancesforthediffcultiesfacedbyadefendantwhocanonlysayIdidntdoit,aswellasdelay.
Footnotes
38
[2000]1CrAppR49;[1999]CrimLR922
39
[2004]2CrimAppR36,[2004]EWCACrim1441
40
17
33
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Thejudgeshouldrefertothefactthatthepassageoftimeisboundtoaffectmemory.A
witnessinabilitytorecalldetailappliesequallytoprosecutionanddefencewitnessesbutitis
theprosecutionwhichbearstheburdenofproof.Thejurymaybetroubledbytheabsenceof
circumstantialdetailwhich,butforthedelay,theywouldexpecttobeavailable.Conversely,the
jurymaybetroubledbythewitnessclaimtorecalladegreeofdetailwhichisunlikelyaftersucha
prolongedpassageoftime.
41
Whetherreferenceshouldbemadetosuchpossibilitiesisamatterfor
thetrialjudgetoassesshavingregardtotheevidenceandtheissueswhichhaveariseninthecase.
If,asaresultofdelay,specifclinesofinquiryhavebeenclosedtothedefendantthedisadvantage
thispresentsshouldbeidentifedandexplainedbyreferencetotheburdenofproof.
Adefendantofgoodcharacterwillbeabletoassertthattheabsenceofanyfurtherandsimilar
allegationissignifcant.
Directionsmustmakeclearthatthejuryshouldgivecarefulconsiderationtotheexigenciesofdelay.
Illustration delay of many years memories fade problems for the defendant in answering the
prosecution case no repetition of the offending
Thecomplainantwasdescribingeventswhichtookplacealongtimeago.Ifyoudoconcludethatshehas
givenasatisfactoryexplanationwhynocomplaintwasmadetothepoliceuntilafterhermarriage,there
remainsomeconsequencesofthedelaywhichyouneedtobearinmind.
First,memoriesfade.Youwouldnotexpectawitnessmemoryofdetailtosurviveintactafterthislengthof
time.Forexample,thecomplainanttoldyou..
But, if a witness does claim to have a memory of detail there may be a risk that its accuracy has been
affectedbythepassageoftime.Weallhaveexperienceofdistantmemoryplayingtrickswithus.Although
thecomplainanttoldyouthatshehadavaguerecollectionabout..,shesaidthatshehadnodiffculty
recallingthedetailsof..
Youmustdecidewhetherthecomplainantsrecollectionoftheessentialeventsisreliable.If,therefore,you
areconcerned,eitherabouttheabsenceofacircumstantialdetailwhichwouldhaveassistedyoutojudgethe
reliabilityofherevidence,orbyherclaimtorememberdetailwhichyouregardasunlikelyafterthislength
oftime,thenthatisalegitimateconcern,becauseitisrelevanttothequestionwhethertheprosecutionhas
proveditscase.But,itisforyoutodecidewhetheryourconcernaffectsonlyasmallpartofthecomplainants
evidenceorunderminesherevidenceasawhole.If,ofcourse,thereisotherevidencewhichtendstosupport
thecomplainantsrecollectionofdetailaboutaparticularincidentyouwouldbeabletogiveeffecttoitif
youthoughtitrighttodoso.Thecomplainantsoldersisterhasgivenevidencethatonthecomplainants
14thbirthdaythecomplainanttoldherthatthedefendanthad,thenightbefore,visitedherbedroomand
touchedherinsideherpyjamasinaprivateplace.Providedyouaresurethatthesisterwasrecalling
Footnotes
41
See,forexample,theconcernsoftheCourtofAppeal,wheretheevidenceofonecomplainantwascapableofsupportingothers
aboutevents37yearsbeforetrial,inJoynson[2008]EWCACrim604
34
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
accurately something she was told at the time and has not been infuenced by anything she has heard
since,herevidenceiscapableofsupportingthecomplainantsevidencerecallingtheincidentitself.Isay
itiscapableofprovidingsupport.Youmustdecidewhetheritdoesornot.Thesistersevidencewasnot
independentofthecomplainantbecausethecomplainantisthesourceofthecomplaint,butthefactthe
complaintwasfrstmade10yearsagoisrelevanttothequestionwhetherthecomplainantspresentclaim
torecalltheincidentisreliable.Thereisnootherrespectinwhichthecomplainantsevidenceiscapableof
beingsupportedinthisway.
Second,youshouldconsidertheeffectwhichthepassageoftimehashaduponthedefendantsabilityto
respond.Hedidnotknow,untilrecently,thathewouldhavetomeetthecasenowbroughtagainsthim.He
isinnobetterpositionthananyoneelsetorememberthedetailsofhisfamilylife10-15yearsago.Togive
anexample,hadtheallegationbeenmadeatthetime,thedefendantmighthavebeenabletorecalldetails
ofhismovementswhichassistedhisdefence.Thatkindofinquiryisnolongeravailabletohim.Counsel
hasdrawntoyourattentiontwospecifcrespectsinwhichthedefendanthasbeendisadvantaged........The
prosecutionresponds.......
If,havingconsideredthedefendantsposition,youacceptthathehas,asaresultofthedelay,beenplaced
atamaterialdisadvantage,youshouldconsidercarefullytowhatextentthatconcernmightinfuenceyour
conclusion.
Thereisoneeffectofdelaywhichyoumayregardassupportiveofthedefendantscase.Thedefendantis
nowinmiddleage.Atthetimeoftheseevents,andsince,thedefendanthashadaccesstoseveralother
childrenwithinthefamilyenvironment.Yet,itisnotsuggestedthathehasbehavedimproperlywiththem
onanyotheroccasion.
Youshouldbearallthesefactorsinmindwhenyouaredecidingwhethertheevidencemakesyousureof
thedefendantsguilt.Youshouldmakeyourownassessmentanddecidewhatweightyoushouldattachto
them.
Sources
Archbold4-66/72,403a;BlackstoneD3.58/62
3S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 5: the prosecution case anD
principles oF criMinal
liability
(1) Circumstantial Evidence
Introduction
Mostcriminalprosecutionsrelyonsomecircumstantialevidence.Othersdependentirelyoralmostentirelyon
circumstantialevidence;itisinthiscategorythatmostcontroversyisgeneratedandspecifcdirectionswillbe
required.
Acircumstantialcaseisonewhichdependsforitscogencyontheunlikelihoodofcoincidence.The
prosecutionseekstoproveseparateeventsandcircumstanceswhichcanbeexplainedrationallyonlyby
theguiltofthedefendant.Thosecircumstancescanincludeopportunity,proximitytothecriticalevents,
communicationsbetweenparticipants,scientifcevidence,andmotive.
Attheconclusionoftheprosecutioncasethequestionforthejudgeiswhether,lookedatcriticallyandinthe
round,thejurycouldsafelyconvict.
42
Thequestionforthejuryiswhetherthefactsastheyfndthemtobe
drivethemtotheconclusion,sothattheyaresure,thatthedefendantisguilty.
43
Directions
ThefollowingisanextractfromthespeechofLordMorrisofBorth-y-GestinMcGreevyv.DPPonthe
subjectofsummingupinacircumstantialcase:
Theparticularformandstyleofasumming-up,provideditcontainswhatmustonanyviewbecertain
essentialelements,mustdependnotonlyupontheparticularfeaturesofaparticularcase,butalsoupon
theviewformedbyaJudgeastotheformandstylethatwillbefairandreasonableandhelpful.Thesolemn
functionofthoseconcernedinacriminaltrialistocleartheinnocentandtoconvicttheguilty.Itis,however,
notfortheJudgebutforthejurytodecidewhatevidenceistobeacceptedandwhatconclusionshould
be drawn from it. It is not to be assumed that members of a jury will abandon their reasoning powers
and,havingdecidedthattheyacceptastruesomeparticularpieceofevidence,willnotproceedfurther
toconsiderwhethertheeffectofthatpieceofevidenceistopointtoguiltorisneutraloristopointto
innocence. Nor is it to be assumed that in the process of weighing up a great many separate pieces of
evidencetheywillforgetthefundamentaldirection,ifcarefullygiventothem,thattheymustnotconvict
unlesstheyaresatisfedthatguilthasbeenprovedandhasbeenprovedbeyondallreasonabledoubt.
Footnotes
42
P(M)[2008]CrAppR6;[2007]EWCACrim3216
43
McGreevyv.DPP[1973]1WLR276,HL;[1973]57CrAppR424
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
3o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Acircumstantialcaserequiresjudicialscrutinyandcare.Itisfrequentlythecasethatcircumstances,
provedoradmitted,areofequivocaleffectintheabsenceofaclinchingorexplanatorypieceof
evidence.Insuchcasesthejudgeshouldassistthejurytoidentifytheevidenceofcircumstances
uponwhichthecogencyoftheprosecutioncasedepends.
Wheretheaccuracyorthetruthofevidenceisindispute,thejurymaybeabletoderiveassistancefrom
otherevidenceinresolvingthatdispute(e.g.consistentaccountsbydifferentwitnesses).Where,however,
theaccuracyortruthofevidencestandingaloneisindispute(e.g.thequalityofidentifcationevidence),
considerationofother,unrelated,evidencemayormaynotassist.Ifitdoesnotassist,thejuryshould
reachaconclusiononthedisputedevidencewithoutregardtoanyothercategoryofevidence.Ifthey
rejecttheevidenceitcanformnopartofthecircumstancestobeassessed.
Wherethequestionisnotwhethertheevidenceisaccurateortrue,butwhethertheevidencesupports
aninferenceofguiltorinnocence,thecircumstancesshouldbeconsideredintheround,sincethefnal
question,whetherthejuryissureofguilt,canonlybeansweredbyassessmentoftheeffectofallthe
evidence.
44
Aninterpretationofthesignifcanceofprovedoradmittedfactsisfrequentlyrequired.Oneofthe
possibledangersisaninvitationtothejurybytheprosecutionorthedefencetorelyuponasinglealleged
facttosupporttheheapingofinferenceuponinference,ortofttheevidencetothetheorybeing
advancedwithoutsuffcientregardtothecogencyoftheinference.Wheretheriskexistsawarningmay
wellberequired.
Directionsshouldinclude:
(1)anexplanationofthenatureandelementsofthecircumstantialcase;
(2)asummaryoftheevidenceinsupportofthatcase;
(3)adirectionthatthejurymustdecidewhatevidencetheyaresuretheyaccept;
(4)asummaryofthedefencecaseastothedisputedevidence,theidentifcationofevidencewhichmay
rebuttheinferenceofguilt,andthedisputedinferences;
(5)anexplanationthatspeculation,orattemptingtofttheevidencetoaparticulartheory(byeither
side),isnotthesameasdrawinganinferencefromreliableevidence;and
(6)adirectionthatthefnalquestionforthejuryiswhethertheevidencetheyacceptleadsthemtothe
conclusion,sothattheyaresure,thatthedefendantisguilty.
Footnotes
44
Hillier[2007]233ALR634(HCAustralia);CriminalLawWeekIssue46December2007(asMcGreevy)
37
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration explanation what is a circumstantial case taking care the categories of evidence
which the jury must consider the defence case example of drawing inferences or reaching
conclusions - beware of speculation the ultimate decision
Theprosecutionhassoughttoproveavarietyoffactsbyevidencefromdifferentsources.Theprosecution
submitsthattheeffectofthatevidence,whenconsideredasawhole,istoleadtotheinescapableconclusion
thatthedefendantisguilty.Inotherwords,thevarietyoffactsprovedcannotbeexplainedascoincidence.
Circumstantialevidence,asitiscalled,canbepowerfulevidencebutitneedstobeexaminedwithcareto
makesurethatitdoeshavethateffect.
The categories of evidence on which the prosecution relies are these...The prosecution places particular
emphasison....because....
Thedefencecaseis....
Youshouldexamineeachcategoryofevidenceinturnanddecidewhetheryouacceptit.Clearly,ifyoureject
asignifcantpartoftheprosecutionevidencethatwillaffecthowyouapproachyourfnalconclusion.
Inthecourseoftheirsubmissionstoyoutheadvocatesonbothsidessuggestedwhatinferencesyoushould
drawfromparticularpartsoftheevidence.Drawinganinferenceissimplytheprocessbywhichyoufnd,
fromevidencewhichyouregardasreliable,thatyouaredriventoafurtherconclusionoffact.Youneedto
becarefultoensurethattheevidencereallydoesleadtotheconclusiontheprosecutioninvitesyoutoreach.
[Letmegiveyouanexampleofdrawinginferenceswhichdoesnotariseonthefactsofthiscasebutwhich
illustratestheneedforcareinjudgingwhetherthefactprovedsupportstheinferenceofguilt:Ifmyfngerprint
isfoundinthelivingroomofmyneighbourshome,itisasoundinferencethatatsomestageIhavebeen
inhislivingroom.Itwouldnot,however,supportaninferencethatIwastheburglarwhostolehisDVD
recorderfromhislivingroom.IfyouacceptedmyneighboursevidencethatIhadneverbeeninvitedintohis
home,then,intheabsenceofsomeacceptableexplanationfromme,youmightinferthatatsomestageI
hadbeeninmyneighbourshomeuninvited.Youmayormaynotbedriventothefurtherconclusionthat
Iwastheburglar.But,ifyoualsoacceptthattherewasfoundasecondfngerprintofmineatthepointof
entryor,thatinmyshedtherewasfoundaDVDrecorderwhichmyneighbourrecognisesastheonestolen
fromhislivingroom,youwould,nodoubt,concludesothatyouweresurethatIwastheburglar.Youwill
noticehowtheinferenceofguiltbecomesmorecompellingdependinguponthenatureandnumberofthe
factsproved.]
What conclusions you reach from the evidence is entirely for you to decide. When you are considering
whatinferencesyoushoulddraw,orwhatconclusionsyoushouldreach,itisimportanttorememberthat
speculationisnopartofthatprocess.Drawinginferencesandreachingconclusionsarenotthesameas
fttingthefactstoaparticulartheory.
Havingdecidedwhatevidenceyouaccept,considerwhether,lookedatasawhole,itdrivesyoutoconclude,
sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendantisguilty.
Sources
Archbold10-3;BlackstoneF1.16
38
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Conspiracy
Introduction
1. Theessenceofacriminalconspiracyistheagreementtocommitthesubstantiveoffenceortodefraud.It
isanagreementbetweentwoormoreconspirators.Negotiationormereintentionisnotenough.
45
2. Itmaybenecessarytoanalysetheevidenceinordertoidentifywhetherwhatisrevealedisoneormore
thanoneconspiracy.
3. Aconspiracymaytaketheformofachain(AagreeswithBwhoagreeswithC)orawheel(Xagrees
withA,XagreeswithB,XagreeswithC),oracombinationofthetwo.Itisnotnecessaryforeach
conspiratortohavemetorcommunicatedwiththeothersoreventoknowtheiridentities,butitis
necessarythateachoftheconspiratorsispartytothecommondesignandisawarethatthedesign
involvesalargerschemeinvolvingothers.Inthewheelconspiracy,withXatitshub,ifA,BandCare
unawareoftheirinvolvementinthelargerschemebutonlyoftheiragreementwithX,therearethree
separateconspiracies,notone.EveniftheyareawarethatXismakingseparateagreementswithA,Band
Ctheyarenotconspiratorswitheachotherunlesstheyarepartiestothewidercommondesign.
46
4. Theconspiracymaybeprovedbyinferencefromconduct,includingwordsspokeninfurtheranceofthe
commondesign,orbydirectevidenceoftheagreement.
5. Section118CriminalJusticeAct2003preservesthecommonlawrulesadmittingevidenceofhearsay
statementsmadeinfurtheranceofacommonenterprise,includingaconspiracy.Fordirectionsinsuch
casesseeChapter14Hearsay(4)StatementsinFurtheranceofaCommonEnterprise.
6. Whentwoallegedconspiratorsaredefendantsinthesametrialtheremaybeevidenceadmissibleagainst
onewhichisnotadmissibleagainsttheother.Thus,itwillbeopentothejurytoconvictonedefendant
andacquittheother.Thesearematterswhichshouldbeconsideredbeforespeechesand,iftheyarise,
theobservationsoftheadvocatessought.Thetrialjudgeshouldevaluatetheevidenceagainsteach
defendant.InTestouri
47
KennedyLJhadthefollowingadviceinacaseofanallegedconspiracytodefraud:
9. Thereissomesupport,onthefaceofit,tobefoundfortheapproachadoptedbythelearnedjudge
inadecisionofthisCourtinthecaseofRvAshton[1992]CrimLR667,ofwhichwehadanopportunity
toreadthetranscript.InthatcasethisCourtcametotheconclusionthatthelearnedjudgewaswrongin
directingthejurythatitwasasituationinwhichtheymustreturnthesameverdictinrelationtoeachofthe
co-accused.Butincommentinguponthatdecision,intheCrimLR,ProfessorSirJohnSmithsaid:
If the evidence admissible against A proves that A and B conspired together, A may be convicted of
conspiracywithB,eventhoughB,hisco-defendant,isacquittedbecausethereisnosuffcientevidence
admissibleagainsthim.TheusualcaseisthatwhereAhasmadeaconfessionwhichisevidenceagainsthim
Footnotes
45
ThereareotherpreservedcommonlawconspiraciesseeArchbold33-34;BlackstoneA6.33;Smith&Hogan12ed.Para
13.3.4.2/3.AstoqualifedorconditionalagreementseeArchbold33.6/7;BlackstoneA6.40/41;Smith&Hogan12ed.Para
13.3.3.1,page409
46
Archbold33-5/8,33-52/57;BlackstoneA6.43;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para13.3,page399
47
[2004]2CrAppR4,[2003]EWCACrim3735at10-11.SeealsoLongmanandCribben[1981]72CrAppR121;Ashton[1992]Crim
LR667(CA);Roberts[1984]78CrAppR41
3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
butnotagainstB.Thepresentcase,however,wasnotlikethat.Thetape-recordingswerenotofadmissions
orconfessionsbutofstepstakenbythepaatiesinpursuanceoftheallegedconspiracyandwereequally
admissibleagainstboth:BlakeandTye(1844)6QB126.WwasentitledtorelyonAsevidenceatthetrial
thathe(A)neverintendedthemurdertotakeplace.Thejurycouldnotbesatisfedthatthisevidencewas
untruesofarasWwasconcernedwhilefndingthatitwas,ormightbe,truesofarasAwasconcerned.It
wasthesameevidence.Thejuryeitherbelieveditortheydidnot.Iftheybelievedit,neitherdefendantwas
guilty,iftheydisbelievedit,bothwereguilty.Itissubmittedthatthetrialjudgesdirectiontothejurywas
correct.
10. ........where what is alleged is a conspiracy to defraud, in which only two defendants are alleged
to have participated, the judge should ask himself two questions. First: whether there is evidence of
conspiracy to defraud? That means there must be evidence of an agreement to achieve a criminal
purpose. If there is no evidence of that because, for example, on one view of the evidence only one
defendant can be shown to have been dishonest then, if that view of the evidence is taken, both
defendants must be acquitted and the jury must be so directed. The authority for that proposition is
to be found in Yip Chieu-Chung v The Queen [1995] 1 AC 111. Secondly: whether there is any evidence
admissible against only one defendant? If that evidence is or could be critical, in that without it that
defendant cannot be shown to have been a party to the conspiracy alleged, then it will be necessary
to explain to the jury how they may reach the conclusion that although the case is proved against
that defendant, it is not proved against the defendant in relation to whom the evidence may not
be admissible. Where there is no such evidence the jury must be told that it is not open to them to
return different verdicts in relation to two defendants. That, as it seems to us, is in practical terms
what is meant by the authorities to which we have referred when they speak of evidence being of
unequal weight.
48
[emphasisadded]
Footnotes
48
Seealsosection5(8)CriminalLawAct1977:theacquittalofallotherconspiratorsisnotagroundforquashingtheconvictionof
anappellantunlessunderallthecircumstances...hisconvictionisinconsistentwiththeacquittaloftheothers,if,forexample,
thedefencewascommontoall(Shannon[1975]AC717;Longman[1980]72CrAppR121;Roberts[1983]78CrAppR41;Elkins
[2005]EWCACrim2711)
40
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
49
ForconspiracytodefraudseeArchbold33-36/40,17-62;BlackstoneA6.48/53;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para13.3.4.1
Directions
Thenatureofastatutoryconspiracycanbeexplainedinafewwords.
Illustration statutory conspiracy defned
Aconspiracyisanagreementbetweentwoormorepeopletocommitacrime.
49
Theprosecutioncaseisthat
thedefendantwithothersagreedto..Theprosecutionmustprove(1)theagreement,(2)thatthedefendant
joinedtheagreement,(3)thatthedefendantknewwhathewasagreeingto,and(4)thatwhenhejoined
theagreementthedefendantintendedthatheorsomeotherpartytoitshouldcarrytheagreementout.
Theissuesraisedmay,andusuallywill,makeitnecessarytoexplainthestructureandevolutionofthe
conspiracyascontendedbytheprosecution.Thefactthatthedefendantsareallchargedwithconspiracy
doesnotnecessarilyimplythattheyareallasdeeplyinvolvedasoneanother.Conspiratorscanjoinand
leaveaconspiracywhiletheconspiracyliveson.Theirrolesmaybeverydifferent.Theyneednotall
beknowntooneanother.Theyneednotknowallthedetails.Directionstothejuryastoproofofthe
conspiracyandthedefendantsparticipationinitshouldbetailoredtotheparticularfactsofthecase.
Theywillusuallydependupontheissuesraisedbythedefence.Theprosecutionwillusuallyberelying
oninferencesfromconductandcircumstantialevidence,astowhichseeChapter5TheProsecutionCase
andPrinciplesofCriminalLiability(1)CircumstantialEvidence.
Illustration conspiracy to supply drugs and being involved in the supply of drugs charged in
alternative counts - wheel conspiracy the nature of conspiracy evidence from which agreement can
be inferred - substantive offence in the alternative
Theindictmentchargesthedefendantsincount1withaconspiracywhichtookplacebetween1Julyand5
November2009tosupplyclassAdrugstoXinManchester.Thedefendantsarealsochargedincount2,in
thealternative,withbeingconcernedinthesupplyofclassAdrugstoXinManchesteron4November2009.
TheprosecutioncaseisthatthethreedefendantsconspiredtogethertosupplydrugstoXinManchester.If
youfndadefendantguiltyuponcount1youarenotaskedtoreturnaverdictinrespectofhimoncount2.
Youareaskedtoconsider2onlyifyoufndthatdefendantnotguiltyofthecount1conspiracy.
Summary of prosecution case
The prosecution case is that at the centre of the conspiracy is D1. D1 recruited D2. They were observed
makingthreejourneysinthesamecarfromLondontoManchester.Oneachoccasiontheystoppedatthe
sameaddresswhereD2wasseentodeliveraholdall.ForthefourthtripD1andD2changedtheirmethodof
delivery.D1recruitedD3tocarrythedrugsaccompaniedbyD2.D1remainedinLondonbutwasincontact
bymobiletelephonewithD2.Thatnight,afterthefourthtrip,theManchesteraddresswasenteredbypolice
offcerswhofoundaquantityofclassAdrugsinholdallsofthesametype.ThefollowingmorningD1was
arrestedathishome.D2andD3werearrestedastheyarrivedatD1saddressinD3scar.
Footnotes
49
ForconspiracytodefraudseeArchbold33-36/40,17-62;BlackstoneA6.48/53;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para13.3.4.1
41
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Count 1 conspiracy to supply
Aconspiracyisanagreementbetweentwoormorepeopletocommitacrime.Theprosecutionmustprove
(1)theagreementtosupplyclassAdrugstoXinManchester(2)thatthedefendantjoinedtheagreement
and(3)thatwhenhejoinedtheagreementthedefendantintendedthatheorsomeotherpartytoitshould
carrytheagreementout.
TheprosecutioncaseisthattherewasaconspiracybetweenD1andD2,laterjoinedbyD3,tosupplyaclass
AdrugtoXinManchester.
Summary of defence cases
D1andD2denythattherewasanagreementtosupplyclassAdrugs.Theysaythatwhiletheevidenceof
theirmovementsandcommunicationsmayseemsuspicioustheywereinfactinnocent.D3admitsthathe
wasaskedbyD1asafavourtodriveD2toManchesterandthatiswhathedid.HeadmitsthatD1placeda
largeholdallinthebootofhiscarwhich,attheirdestination,wasremovedandhandedtoamanunknown
tohim.But,hesays,hehadnoknowledgethattheholdallcontaineddrugs,noroftheexistenceofany
conspiracyandhadnointentionthatanyoffenceofsupplyingdrugsshouldbecommitted.
Conspiracy D1 and D2
LetusconsiderthepositionofD1andD2frst.Thereisnodirectevidenceofanagreementbetweenthe
defendantstosupplydrugstoManchester.Thatisnotunusual.Thosewhocommitcrimedonotalways
disclosetootherswhattheyaredoingorwhattheyareintendingtodo.Theagreementcanbeinferredfrom
theactivitiesofthedefendants.Considertheevidenceofsurveillance,oftelephonecontact,ofcallmapping
evidenceandtherecoveryofdrugs.ConsideralsotheexplanationsgivenbyD1andD2ininterviewandin
evidence.AreyoudriventotheconclusionsothatyouaresurethattheyestablishanagreementbetweenD1
andD2tosupplydrugstoXinManchester,ormayitbethattheexplanationstheyhavegivenaretrue?
YoumustbesurethattherewasanagreementbetweenD1andD2tosupplyclassAdrugstoXinManchester
withtheintentionthattheyoreitherofthemwoulddoso.Ifyouaresure,thenyourverdictwillbeguilty,
count1,inthecasesofD1andD2.Ifyouarenotsure,thenyourverdictmustbenotguilty,count1,inthe
casesofD1,D2andD3.
Conspiracy D3
IfyouaresuretherewasaconspiracybetweenD1andD2thenyouwillneedtodecidewhetherD3joined
it.Itisnotnecessarythateveryconspiratorshouldbeinatthebeginningorthateveryconspiratorshould
playamajorpart;norisitnecessarythatD3shouldhaveknownthedetailsoftheprevioussupply,orthe
identityofX,providedthathejoinedwhatheknewtobeanongoingconspiracytosupplyclassAdrugsto
apersonorpersonsinManchester.Here,theprosecutioncaseisthatD3joinedtheconspiracyafterthefrst
threetrips,participatedinthefourthtripandwouldhaveparticipatedinaffthhadhenotbeenarrested.If
youaresurethatD3agreedtojoinanongoingconspiracybetweenD1andD2intendingthatdrugsshould
besuppliedtoManchesterthenyourverdictwillbeguilty,count1,inhiscasetoo.
42
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Count 2 - being concerned in the supply
Iturnnexttocount2whichchargesD1,D2andD3inthealternativewithbeingconcernedinthesupplyof
classAdrugs.Count2relatesonlytothefourthtriptoManchester.Theprosecutiondoesnotaskyoutofnd
anydefendantguiltyofbothcounts.Ifyouhavefoundadefendantguiltyofcount1youneednotconsider
hispositionincount2.Count2isincludedintheindictmenttocovertwopossibleeventualities:
First,ifyouarenotsurethattherewasanongoingconspiracybetweenD1andD2,inotherwords,ifyouare
notsurethattheevidenceoftheiractivitiesestablishesanagreementtosupplyclassAdrugs,thenyouneed
toconsider,inthecasesofD1,D2andD3,whethertheywereconcernedinthesupplyofclassAdrugsonthe
fourthtrip.
The second possible eventuality is that you are sure there was an ongoing conspiracy between D1 and
D2 (and therefore that they are guilty of count 1) but you are not sure that D3 was aware of or joined
thatconspiracy.InthatcaseyouwillneedtoconcentrateonthequestionwhetherD3was,nevertheless,
concernedinthesupplyofdrugsonthefourthtrip.
Adefendantisguiltyofcount2iftheprosecutionprovessothatyouaresurethathetooksomepartinthe
arrangementsfordeliveryofclassAdrugsonthefourthtrip,intendingthatthedeliveryshouldtakeplace.
I have prepared a Route to Verdict which will enable you to address all relevant questions in the correct
sequenceand,bythatmeans,toarriveataverdictinrespectofeachdefendant.Letusreadittogether.
Illustration Route to Verdict
PleaseanswerQuestion1frstandproceedasdirected
Question 1 (Conspiracy D1 and D2)
AreyousurethatD1andD2conspiredtogethertosupplyclassAdrugstoXinManchester?See Note 1
below
Ifyouaresuretheydid,verdictsinthecasesofD1andD2guiltycount1,andproceedtoquestion2
Ifyouarenotsuretheydid,verdictsinthecasesofD1,D2andD3notguiltycount1,andproceedto
question3
Question 2 (Conspiracy D3)
AreyousurethatD3joinedthecriminalconspiracybetweenD1andD2tosupplyclassAdrugstoXin
Manchester?See Note 2 below
IfyouaresurethatD3joinedtheconspiracy,verdictinthecaseofD3guiltycount1andproceedno
further
IfyouarenotsurethatD3joinedtheconspiracy,verdictinthecaseofD3notguiltyandproceedto
question3
43
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 3 (Being concerned in supply 4 November 2009 D1, D2, D3)
Areyousurethatthedefendantwhosecaseyouareconsidering(D1,D2,orD3)wasconcernedinthesupply
ofaclassAdrugtoXinManchesteron4November2009? See Note 3 below
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantwasconcernedinasupplyon4November2009,verdictguilty
count2
Ifyouarenotsurethatthedefendantwasconcernedinasupplyon4November2009,verdictnot
guiltycount2
Note 1:
D1 and D2 conspired together if they made an agreement to supply class A drugs to X in
Manchester intending to make supplies.
Note 2:
D3 joined the conspiracy between D1 and D2 if (1) he knew there was an existing agreement
between D1 and D2 to supply class A drugs to someone in Manchester (2) he joined the
agreement and (3) he intended that one or more of them would carry the agreement into
effect.
Note 3:
You will be considering Question 3 only if you have found the defendant not guilty of count 1.
The defendant was concerned in the supply if he took some part in arrangements for the
delivery of class A drugs to X in Manchester on 4 November 2009 intending that the delivery
should take place.
Sources
Archbold33-1/77;BlackstoneA6.33/53;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para13.3.,page399
44
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Intention
Introduction
Section8CriminalJusticeAct1967providesthatajuryisnotboundtoinferthatthedefendantintended
(orforesaw)aresultofhisactionsbyreasononlyofitbeinganaturalandprobableconsequenceof
thoseactions,butshalldecidewhetherthedefendantdidintend(orforesee)thatresultbyreferenceto
alltheevidence,drawingsuchinferencesasappearproperinthecircumstances.
ThefactthataresultwasanaturalandprobableconsequenceofDsactiondoesnot,therefore,prove
thatDintendedorforesawthatresult.Dsactualforesightoftheresultmayormaynotenablethejury
toinferintention.
Directions
Intentionisawordincapableoffurthersatisfactoryanalysis.Wantordesirearenotsynonyms
forintendsinceitisopentothejurytoinferintentionfromthedefendantsawarenessofthe
virtualcertaintyofconsequencesofhisconduct,eventhoughtheyacceptthatthedefendant
hopedthattheresultwouldnotoccur.
50
Thewordintendisreadilyunderstoodifusedinthe
contextinwhichthejuryneedtoconsiderit.
Intentionisastateofmindwhichthejurycanresolveonlybyinferenceorbytheadmissionofthe
defendant.
Elaborationwillalmostneverberequired.Ifitis(whereDmaynothavewantedordesiredthekind
ofharmhisactcausedbuttheprosecutioncontendsthathewasawareofthelikelyconsequence)
thenthejuryshouldbedirectedthatforesightofconsequencesisnotproofofintentbutonlyone
factortobeconsidered.
51
Aspecifcdirectionwillusuallyberequiredonlywhenaspecifcintentisinissue.
Thejuryshouldbetoldfromwhatsourcesofevidencetheycanconsiderdrawingtheinference.
Footnotes
50
HancockandShankland[1986]CA455;Woollin[1999]1AC82
51
HancockandShankland(supra)atpage474
4S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration intent to cause really serious harm the intention must accompany the act drawing
the inference from the circumstances
IfyouaresurethatthedefendantunlawfullycausedreallyseriousbodilyharmtoV,heisguiltyofcount1if
theprosecutionalsoprovesthatthedefendantintendedtocausehimreallyseriousbodilyharm.
Theprosecutiondoesnothavetoprovethatthedefendantsetoutwiththeintentionofcausingharm.The
factthatafterwardsthedefendantmayhaveregrettedwhathehaddonedoesnotamounttoadefence.
Youneedtoreachaconclusionastowhatwashisintentionduringthemomentshewasusingunlawful
violencetowardsV.
Naturally, you can reach a conclusion what the defendants intention was only by examining the
circumstancesoftheattackonV.Thisincludeswhatwasdoneandsaidatthetime,thenatureandduration
oftheattack,theuseofanyweapon,thenatureoftheinjuryinfictedonVandthedefendantsbehaviour
immediatelyafterwards.Youshouldalsoconsiderwhatthedefendanthadtosayabouthisstateofmindin
interviewandinevidence.
Theprosecutionrelies,inparticular,on.
Thedefendanttoldyou.
If,havingexaminedtheevidence,anddespitethedefendantsdenial,youaresureheintendedtocauseV
reallyseriousbodilyharm,thenyourverdictuponcount1willbeguilty.Ifyouarenotsure.
Incaseswherethedefendantsjudgementandawarenessmayberelevant,furtherexplanationis
required.
Illustration dangerous act an indirect cause of really serious harm foresight of consequences of
dangerous act relevant to inference of intention young defendant with learning diffculties
The defendant accepts that he carried a concrete block from the roadside onto the footbridge over the
motorway.Hewanted,hesaid,tohaveabitoffunbygivingadriverashockbutnomorethanthat.He
pushedtheblockoffthebridgeparapetatthemomenthejudgeditwouldhitthebumperofthecardriven
byV.Asweknow,theblockstruckthebonnetofVscarbutitbouncedandsmashedthewindscreen.V
lostcontrolofthecarandthecarmountedthebanktothenearsideandturnedover.Theevidenceisthat
Vsufferedafracturedskullontherightsidewhenhisheadcameintoviolentcontactwiththedriversdoor
pillar as the car turned over. The defendant told you that he was very upset by what he had done. He
thoughtthecarwouldswerveabit,thenstop,andthedriverwouldgetoutnotknowingwhathadhithim.
Thedefendantischargedwithcausinggrievousbodilyharmwithintenttocausegrievousbodilyharm.
TheprosecutionmustfrstprovethatbyhisunlawfulactthedefendantcausedVreallyseriousbodilyinjury.
Thedefendantdoesnotdisputethatthisiswhathedid.
4o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Therealissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefenceiswhetherthedefendantintendedtocausereally
seriousbodilyinjury.ItisnotnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoprovethatthedefendantknewVorintendedto
causereallyseriousinjurytoVspecifcally.Itisenoughiftheprosecutionprovethatthedefendantintended
tocauseanoccupantofthecarreallyseriousinjury.
Naturally, you can reach a conclusion what was the defendants intention only by examining the
circumstancesinwhichtheharmwascausedandthedefendantsownexplanationofhisstateofmind.
Whatarethecircumstanceswhichyouneedtoconsider?
First,thedefendantwas,atthetime,16yearsofage.Youhaveheardevidenceabouthispersonalityandhis
learningdiffculties.
Second,considerexactlywhathedid.
Third,considerwhatwerethelikelyconsequencesofwhathewasabouttodo.Wouldthoseconsequences
havebeenobvioustothis16yearolddefendant?
Fourth,considerthedefendantsownevidenceabouthisawarenessofthelikelyconsequencesofwhathe
did.Itisimportantthatyoureachadecisionwhetherthedefendantwaslyingtoyouordoinghisbesttotell
youthetruth.
Do not judge the defendants awareness with the beneft of hindsight but consider his state of mind as
it would have been while the block was resting on the parapet. You may regard the defendants act as
extremelydangerous.Indeedyoumayconcludethattherewasahighprobabilityofdeathorseriousinjury
arisingfromthedefendantsintentionalact.Imustemphasise,however,thatwhatyouareconsideringis
whatthedefendanthimselfintended.IfyouacceptthatthedefendantmayhavewantedjusttogiveVan
unpleasantsurprise,thatisevidencefromwhichyoucouldconcludethathedidnotintendtocausereally
seriousharm.Ontheotherhand,ifyouaresurethatthedefendantrealiseditwasavirtualcertaintythat
bypushingtheblockofftheparapetreallyseriousharmtosomeoneinthecarwouldfollow,itisopentoyou
toconcludethat,despitehisdenial,eventhoughhismainpurposemayhavebeenmerelytoderivepleasure
fromhismischief.
However,youneedtobearinmindthroughoutthatthisdefendantwasnotanadult.Hewasaged16and
inmanyrespectsheisstillanimmature16yearold.Youhaveheardthathisabilitytoprocessinformation
and to anticipate events is impaired by his learning diffculty. You must judge not whether the ordinary
man would have been aware, but whether this 16 year old defendant himself was aware, of the likely
consequencesofwhathewasabouttodo.Ifthedefendantmaynothaverealisedthatconsequencessuch
asthesewerealmostboundtofollow,youcouldnotconcludefromthecircumstancesalonethatheintended
really serious harm. Even if you were to conclude that the defendant was aware that serious injury was
avirtuallycertainconsequenceofwhathewasabouttodo,thatdoesnotmeanthatyouareboundto
concludethatheintendedit.Itwouldbeonlyoneofthefactors,animportantfactorperhaps,fromwhich
youcouldinferhisintention.
Havingconsideredalltheavailableevidenceinthisway,askyourselvesthequestion,arewesurethatthe
defendant intended to cause someone in the car really serious bodily injury. If you are sure he did, the
defendantisguiltyofcount1.Ifyouarenotsure..
Sources
Archbold17-34/36;BlackstoneA2.2;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para5.2.1
47
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Intention Formed in Drink or Under the Infuence of Drugs
52

Introduction
1. Thevoluntaryconsumptionofdrinkordrugscannotavailadefendantchargedwithacrimeofbasic
intent.
53
2. Anintentformedindrinkorundertheinfuenceofdrugsisstillanintent.Thefactapersonmaynot
haveformedthatintentifsoberisnotadefence.
3. Whereacrimeofspecifcintentisalleged,thejuryshouldtakethedefendantastheyfndhim.They
shouldhaveregardtohisstateofintoxicationtogetherwithallotherrelevantcircumstanceswhen
decidingwhetherheactedwiththeintentrequired.
54
4. Themerefactthatthedefendanthadtakendrinkdoesnottriggerarequirementtogivethejury
adirectionaboutit.Whatisrequiredisevidenceofconsumptionofaquantitywhichmayhave
affectedthedefendantsstateofmind.
55
Wherethereisuncertainty,discussionwiththeadvocatesis
desirable.
56
5. Theissueforthejuryisnotwhetherthedefendanthadthecapacitytoformtheintention;the
questioniswhetherhedidhavetheintention.
57
Direction
Iftheoffencerequiresspecifcintentthejuryshouldbedirectedthatadrunkenintentisstillintent.It
isimmaterialthattheintentmaynothavebeenformedhadthedefendantbeensober.Thequantity
ofdrinktakenisjustoneofthecircumstancestobeconsideredwhenthejurydecideswhetheritis
provedthatthedefendanthadtheintentrequired.
Ifthecrimeallegedisoneofbasicintentinwhichrecklessnessissuffcientmensreathejury
canbetoldthatthestateofthedefendantsintoxicationcanprovidenodefence.
58
Wherethe
defendantsawarenessisinissue(e.g.whetherherealisedthathisactionsmightcauseharmorother
consequences,orwhetherherealisedtheexistenceofarisk)thejurymustconsidertheissueas
Footnotes
52
Seealso(6)Recklessness,Chapter16Defences(2)SelfDefenceandRelatedMatters,(3)Duress,(4)InsaneandNon-Insane
Automatism,(5)Provocationand(6)DiminishedResponsibility
53
ButseeChapter16Defences(4)InsaneandNon-InsaneAutomatismforcasesofanunforeseenreactiontoprescribedmedicine
andc.f.Kingston[1995]2AC355(involuntaryconsumptionofdrugsleadingtointentionalbutuninhibitedact).Fordiscussionof
whatisacrimeofbasicintent,seeArchbold17-105/112a;BlackstoneA3.10;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para11.4.3;Heard[2008]QB
43;[2007]EWCACrim125
54
Rv.SheehanandMoore60CrAppR308atp.312
55
Rv.Alden&Jones[2001]5ArchboldNews3.CtMAC
56
Rv.Groark[1999]CrimLR669,CA
57
Rv.Garlick[1981]72CrimAppR291
58
Contra,whentheintoxicationarisesfromabenevolentdrugwhosecapacityforunpredictabilityandaggressionisgenerally
unknownandthejuryhastojudgewhethertakingsuchadrugwasitselfreckless:Hardie[1985]80CrAppR157(valium,criminal
damage,beingrecklessetc.)
48
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
thoughhehadbeensober.Therationaleforthisdirectionisthatthedefendantsdrunkennessisan
integralpartofhisrecklessnessoritisapre-existingfaultonwhoseconsequencesthelawdoesnot
permithimtorely.
59
SeealsoChapter5(6)Recklessness.
Illustration crime of basic intent assault occasioning actual bodily harm - reckless act
Thedefendantsayshewassodrunkthathewasunawareofwhathewasdoing.Ifyouacceptthatisormay
betrue,itprovideshimwithnodefence.Thedefendantischargedwithassaultoccasioningactualbodily
harm.Theprosecutionmustprovethat(1)thedefendantlashedoutatV(2)intendingtocauseVfearof
unlawfulforceorbeingrecklesswhetherVwouldfearunlawfulforceand(3)thedefendantsviolencedidin
factcauseVsomebodilyinjury.
ThedefendantdoesnotdisputethathemusthaveswunghisarmtowardsVcausinghimablackeyeeven
thoughhenowhasnorecollectionofdoingit.
Ifyouaresurethat,inhisdrunkenness,thedefendantintendedtostrikeV,heisguilty.Ifyouarenotsurehe
hadthatintention,youshouldconsiderwhetherheactedrecklessly.Hewasrecklessifyouaresure(1)the
defendantswungouthisarminthedirectionofVknowingthattherewasariskVwouldfearforhissafety
and(2)itwasunreasonabletotakethatrisk.
Indecidingwhetherthedefendantactedrecklesslyyoushouldjudgehimasyouwouldifhehadbeensober.
Hisdrunkennessisnotanexcuse.Hadhebeensober,wouldthedefendanthaverealisedthathisactof
swinginghisarminthedirectionofVriskedcausingVfearofharm?Ifso,andifyouaresurehisactwas
unreasonable,thenthedefendantisguilty.
Ifthecrimeallegedisoneofspecifcintent,thejurymaybeassistedbyareferencetotheknowneffects
ofalcoholordrugs:
Illustration crime of specifc intent intent to cause really serious harm - effects of alcohol
The defendants evidence was that he was drunk and, as a result, he remembers little about the events
alleged.Inparticular,hesaysthathedoesnotrememberhavinganyintentiontocausereallyseriousharm
anddoesnotthinkhedidhavethatintention.
Theevidenceofthedrinkhehadtakenwas..
Youwillneedtodecidewhetheryouacceptthatthedefendantwasormayhavebeenasdrunkashesays
hewas,suffcientlydrunktobeunawarelaterthatnightofwhathehaddoneandwithwhatintent.Ifyou
acceptthatthedefendantwasormayhavebeendrunk,youneedtoknowtowhatextentthatmaybe
relevanttotheissuesyouhavetodecide.
Footnotes
59
DPPvMajewski[1977]AC443,HL;Rv.Caldwell[1982]AC341,HL.SeealsoSmith&Hogan12thed.Para11.4.3/5.Notealsothe
controversialobiteranalysisofcrimesofbasicintentbythecourtinHeard[2007]EWCACrim125
4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weallknowthatdrinkcanaffectpeopleindifferentways.Somebecomedocileandsleepy,othersbecome
aggressiveandviolent.Ifyouconcludesothatyouaresurethatthedefendantbecameviolentindrink
and,whiledrunk,formedanintentiontocausereallyseriousharm,thentherequisiteintentisproved.
YoumustjudgewhetherthedefendanthadthatintentionatthetimewhenheattackedV.Thefacthemay
nothaveformedthatintenthadhebeensoberdoesnotprovidehimwithadefence.Thefactthatwhen
hesoberedupthedefendantcouldnotrecallwhathehaddoneorwithwhatintentdoesnotassisthim.
Thedefendantsstateofdrunkennessatthetimeoftheviolenceisjustoneofthefactorswhichyoumust
consider.ConsiderallthecircumstancesasIhavedescribedthem,includingthefactthatthedefendant
wasdrunk,whenjudgingwhetherthedefendantintendedtocausereallyseriousharm.Ifyouaresurehe
didthenheisguiltyofcount1.Ifyouarenotsureheactedwiththatintentthen.
Sources
Archbold17-105/113,113a-117;BlackstoneA3.8/12;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para11.4
S0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Dishonesty
Introduction
1. Manyoffencesrequireproofofdishonesty.Dishonestyisastateofmindwhich,unlessadmitted,canonly
beinferredfromconduct.Rarely,thequestionariseswhetherthestateofmindwithwhichthedefendant
actedcouldproperlybedescribedasdishonest.
2. InGhosh
60
theCourtofAppeal,choosingbetweentwolinesofauthority,concludedthatthetestof
dishonestywassubjective.LordLaneCJsaid
61
:
Ifwearerightthatdishonestyissomethinginthemindoftheaccused(whatProfessorGlanvilleWilliams
callsaspecialmentalstate),thenifthemindoftheaccusedishonest,itcannotbedeemeddishonest
merelybecausemembersofthejurywouldhaveregardeditasdishonesttoembarkonthatcourseof
conduct.
Sowewouldrejectthesimpleuncomplicatedapproachthatthetestispurelyobjective,howeverattractive
fromthepracticalpointofviewthatsolutionmaybe.
Thereremainstheobjectionthattoadoptasubjectivetestistoabandonallstandardsbutthatofthe
accusedhimself,andtobringaboutastateofaffairsinwhichRobinHoodwouldbenorobber(see
GreenandGreenstein(supra))
62
.Thisobjectionmisunderstandsthenatureofthesubjectivetest.Itisno
defenceforamantosayIknewthatwhatIwasdoingisgenerallyregardedasdishonest;butIdonot
regarditasdishonestmyself.ThereforeIamnotguilty.WhatheishoweverentitledtosayisIdidnot
knowthatanybodywouldregardwhatIwasdoingasdishonest.Hemaynotbebelieved;justashe
maynotbebelievedifhesetsupaclaimofrightundersection2(1)oftheTheftAct,orassertsthat
hebelievedinthetruthofamisrepresentationundersection15oftheTheftAct.Butifheisbelieved,or
raisesarealdoubtaboutthematter,thejurycannotbesurethathewasdishonest.
In determining whether the prosecution has proved that the defendant was acting dishonestly, a jury
mustfrstofalldecidewhetheraccordingtotheordinarystandardsofreasonableandhonestpeoplewhat
wasdonewasdishonest.Ifitwasnotdishonestbythosestandards,thatistheendofthematterandthe
prosecutionfails.
Ifitwasdishonestbythosestandards,thenthejurymustconsiderwhetherthedefendanthimselfmust
haverealisedthatwhathewasdoingwasbythosestandardsdishonest.Inmostcases,wheretheactions
areobviouslydishonestbyordinarystandards,therewillbenodoubtaboutit.Itwillbeobviousthatthe
defendanthimselfknewthathewasactingdishonestly.Itisdishonestforadefendanttoactinaway
whichheknowsordinarypeopleconsidertobedishonest,evenifheassertsorgenuinelybelievesthat
heismorallyjustifedinactingashedid.Forexample,RobinHoodorthoseardentanti-vivisectionists
whoremoveanimalsfromvivisectionlaboratoriesareactingdishonestly,eventhoughtheymayconsider
themselvestobemorallyjustifedindoingwhattheydo,becausetheyknowthatordinarypeoplewould
considertheseactionstobedishonest.
Footnotes
60
[1982]QB1053;[1982]75CrAppR154
61
Atpage162
62
[1975]61CrAppR296
S1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Manyactsofdishonesty,ifproved,aresoplainlydishonestthatnoassistanceonthemeaningoftheword
isrequired.InRoberts
63
andPrice
64
theCourtofAppealheldthatitwasnotnecessarytogivetheGhosh
directionunlesstheissuewasraisedthattheconduct,admittedorproved,mightnotberegardedas
dishonestbythestandardsofordinarypeople.
4. InClarke
65
theprosecutioncasewasthatthedefendant,aprivateinvestigator,hadmadefalse
representationstoagroupofclientsabouthisformeremploymentandexperience.Bythismeanshe
securedacontracttorecoverfundsofwhichtheyhadbeendefrauded.Thedefendantwaschargedwith
obtainingapecuniaryadvantagebydeception.Thedefencecasewasthatifhemadetherepresentations
thedefendantdidnotactdishonestlybecausehehadintendedtodothework,wasabletodothework
and,induecourse,diddothework.Thetrialjudgeindicatedthatproofofthefalserepresentations
wouldalonebesuffcienttoprovedishonestyandthedefendantpleadedguilty.Theeffectofsucha
ruling,theCourtofAppealheld,wastoremovetheissueofdishonestyfromthejury.Thedefendantwas
entitledtothejurysdecisionunderthefrstandsecondlimboftheGhoshtestwhetherhewasacting
dishonestlyifhemadeadmittedlyfalserepresentationstoobtaintheworkwithagenuineintentionof
doingthework.
Directions
Usuallynospecifcdirectionwillberequired.
Whereaspecifcdirectionisrequired,theorderofquestionsposedinGhoshshouldnotbereversedand
thewordsusedshouldbecloselyfollowed.
66
Inacaseofconspiracytodefraudtheissueiswhetherwhat
thedefendantagreedtodowasdishonest.
Itmaybenecessarytoexplainthedistinctionbetweenknowledgeofthelawandknowledgeofordinary
standardsofhonestyanddishonesty.InLightfoot
67
thedefendantwascaughttryingtoobtaingoodson
acreditcardissuedtohisemployer.Hehadalreadypurchasedvaluablegoodsbyforginghisemployers
signatureonthetransactionslips.Thedefencecasewasthatthedefendanthadbeengiventhecard
tomaketransactions.Hedidnotthinkhewascommittinganyoffence.Thejuryinquiredwhether
ignoranceofthelawwasadefence.Thetrialjudgereplied,withoutmore,thatitwasnot.TheCourtof
Appealheldthatinthecircumstancesthejudgeshouldhaveexplainedthedifferencebetweenignorance
ofthelaw(whichwasirrelevant)anddishonesty(whichwasrelevant).Thedefendanthadbeendeprived
ofapossibledefencethathedidnotrealiseordinarypeoplewouldregardusinghisemployerscardwith
hisemployersconsentashedidwasdishonest,eventhoughheadmittedlyforgedhissignaturewhen
doingso.
Footnotes
63
[1987]84CrAppR117
64
[1990]90CrAppR409
65
[1996]CrimLR824
66
Green[1992]CrimLR292;Hyam[1997]CrimLR439
67
[1993]97CrAppR24
S2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration the Ghosh questions
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantactedastheprosecutionalleges,thefnalissueiswhetherthedefendant
wasactingdishonestly.Inordertoresolvethatissueyouneedtoconsidertwoquestions:
1. Waswhatthedefendantdiddishonestbytheordinarystandardsofreasonableandhonestpeople?It
isforyoutodecidewhatthosestandardsareandtoapplythemtothisquestion.
If what the defendant did was not or may not have been dishonest by those standards you must
fndhimnotguilty.If,however,youaresurethatreasonableandhonestpeoplewouldconsiderthe
defendantsactionstohavebeendishonestyoushouldmovetothesecondquestion.
2. Mustthedefendanthaverealisedthatwhathewasdoingwouldbeconsidereddishonestbythose
standards?Youare,inotherwords,drawinganinferenceastowhatwasthedefendantsownstateof
mind.
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantknewthatwhathewasdoingwasdishonestbytheordinarystandardsof
reasonableandhonestpeoplethenheisguilty,whetherhepersonallyregardeditasdishonestornot.
Sources
Archbold21-2c/3;BlackstoneB4.40;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para19.2.2.
S3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(6) Recklessness
Introduction
1. InRv.GandAnother
68
,theHouseofLordsoverruledMetropolitanPoliceCommissionerv.Caldwell
69
(which
hadheldthatadefendantwasrecklesswhenhisact-causingdamage-presentedanobviousriskof
damageandeitherhetookthatriskorgavenothoughttoit)andreturnedtosubjectiverecklessnessas
defnedinCunningham.
70
2. SinceRv.G,apersonactsrecklesslywithinthemeaningofs.1oftheCriminalDamageAct1971with
respectto-
(i)acircumstance,whenheisawareofariskthatitexistsorwillexist;
(ii)aresult,whenheisawareofariskthatitwilloccur;
anditis,inthecircumstancesknowntohim,unreasonabletotaketherisk.
3. WhiletheHouseinGwasdealingwithsection1CriminalDamageAct1971,theCourtofAppealCriminal
Divisionhasacceptedthewiderapplicationofthedecision.
71
Themensreaofoffencesrequiringmalice,
suchassection20OffencesAgainstthePersonAct1861remainsintentionorsubjectiverecklessness
andisthereforeinlinewithG(i.e.thedefendantwasawareofariskofsomeharmwhichhethen,
unreasonably,wentontotake).
72
4. Ifthedefendantmayhavebeenunawareoftheriskofcircumstanceorresultunderconsiderationbecause
hewasundertheinfuenceofdrinkordrugsthejurymustassesshisstateofawarenessasitwouldhave
beenifhehadbeensober.
73
Directions
Whendecidingwhetherthedefendantwasreckless,thefrststageisajudgementwhetherthedefendant
wasawareoftherisk(subjective).
Thesecondstageisajudgmentwhethertherisktakenwasreasonableinthecircumstancesofwhichthe
defendantwasaware(objective).
Ifthedefendantsabilitytoappreciatetheriskwasormayhavebeenimpairedthroughdrinkthejury
shouldbeaskedtoconsiderhisawarenessasitwouldhavebeenhadthedefendantbeensober.Ifthey
aresurethedefendantwouldhavebeenawareoftheriskifhehadbeensober,thefrststageissatisfed.
Footnotes
68
[2004]AC1034;[2003]UKHL50
69
[1982]AC341(HL)
70
[1957]2QB396(HL)
71
Att.-GensReference(No.3of2003)[2004]CrAppR23;[2004]EWCACrim868(Misconductinpublicoffce);Brady[2007]Crim
LR564;[2006]EWCACrim2413(s.20OffencesAgainstthePersonAct1861)
72
Brady(supra)
73
DPPv.Majewski[1977]AC443,[1976]CrimLR374.SeealsoChapter5TheProsecutionCaseandPrinciplesofCriminalLiability(4)
IntentionFormedinDrinkorUndertheInfuenceofDrugs
S4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration intention recklessness drunkenness - criminal damage
Thedefendantischargedwithcriminaldamageundersection1(1)CriminalDamage1971.Headmitsthat
helitafrewithnewspapersagainstthewallofthepavilion.Hesayshewasdrunkandcold,andlitthefre
tokeepwarm.Hesayshedidnotappreciatethatthewallofthepavilionwasmadeofwoodandbelieved
thatthefrewouldjustdieout.Infactthewallcaughtfreandthepavilionburneddown.
Theprosecutionmustprovethat(1)thedefendantsetafrewhichcausedthedamage,(2)thedefendant
hadnolawfulexcuseforcausingthedamage;(3)eitherthedefendantcausedthedamageintentionallyor
hewasrecklesswhetherhisactofsettingthefrewouldcausedamagetothepavilion.
Thereisnodisputethatthedefendant(1)setafrewhichburneddownthepavilionand(2)hadnolawful
excuseforcausingthedamage.Theissueforyouiswhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatthedefendant
intendedtodamagethepavilionorwasrecklesswhetherhedidso.
Naturally, you can only resolve this issue by examining the circumstances, considering the defendants
explanation,andreachingaconclusionaboutthedefendantsstateofmind.
The prosecution relies on the following circumstances to establish that it must have been obvious to the
defendantthatthepavilionwouldcatchfreifafrewaslitagainstit....
Thedefencesubmitted...
Firstdecidewhether,despitethedefendantsdenial,youaresureheintendedtodamagethepavilionby
settingfretoit.Whendecidingwhetherthedefendanthadthatintentionhisstateofintoxicationisjust
oneofthecircumstancesyouneedtoconsider.Adrunkenintentioncountsthesameasanintentionformed
whensober.Ifthedefendantintendedtodamagethepavilion,heisguilty.
Ifyouarenotsurethatthedefendantintendedtodamagethepavilion,thenyoushouldconsiderwhether
hewasrecklessastowhetheritwouldbedamaged.
Youshouldconsiderrecklessnessintwostages.Thefrstquestioniswhetherthedefendantrealisedthatby
lightingthefretherewasariskthatthepavilionwouldcatchalight.Thedefendantisnot,however,entitled
to take advantage of his own drunkenness. You must judge him as if he had been sober. The question
youmustask,therefore,is:Hadthedefendantbeensober,wouldhehaverealisedthattherewasariskof
damagetothepavilion?Youmayfndithelpfulwhenconsideringthisquestiontoplaceyourselvesinthe
defendantsposition.If,puttingasidethewisdomofhindsight,youconcludethattheriskofdamagetothe
pavilionwasplainandobvious,thenyouareentitledtoinferthathadthedefendantbeensoberhewould
havetoo.
If you are sure, either that the defendant was aware, or, had he been sober, the defendant would have
beenawareoftherisk,youmovetothesecondquestion:Giventhedegreeofriskasthedefendanteither
appreciateditorasmustbetakentohaveappreciatedit,wasitreasonableorunreasonableforhimtolight
thefreashedid?Noargumenthasbeenadvancedtoyouastowhyitmighthavebeenreasonabletorisk
settingfretothepavilion.Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantappreciatedtherisk,orwouldhavedonehad
henotbeendrunk,andthatitwasunreasonableforhimtotakethatrisk,yourverdictwouldbeguilty.
IhavepreparedaRoutetoVerdictwhichsetsoutinthecorrectsequencethequestionsyouneedtoresolve.
Letusreadittogether.
SS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
PleaseanswerQuestion1andproceedasdirected
Question 1
Didthedefendantdeliberatelylightafrewhichinfactcauseddamagetothepavilion?
Admitted.Gotoquestion2
Question 2
Whenhelitthefredidthedefendantintendtodamagethepavilion?
Ifyouaresurethedefendantintendedtodamagethepavilion,verdictguiltyandproceednofurther
Ifyouarenotsurethedefendantintendedtodamagethepavilion,proceedtoquestion3
Question 3
Wasthedefendantawarethatbylightingthefretherewasariskthatthepavilionwouldbedamaged?
Ifyouaresureeitherthatthedefendantwasawareoftheriskorthathewouldhavebeenawareof
theriskifhehadbeensober,proceedtoquestion4
Ifyouarenotsurethatthedefendantwasawareoftheriskandyouarenotsurethathewouldhave
beenawareoftheriskifhehadbeensober,verdictnotguilty
Question 4
Wasitunreasonableforthedefendanttotaketheriskofdamagingthepavilionbylightingthefre?
Ifyouaresureitwasunreasonabletotaketherisk,verdictguilty
Ifyouarenotsureitwasunreasonable,verdictnotguilty
Sources
Archbold 17-50/52 (generally); 19-167 (assault and battery); 19-211 (wounding); 23-9/21 (criminal
damage)
BlackstoneA2.3/6(generally);B2.10(assaultandbattery);B2.49(wounding);B8.8(criminaldamage)
Smith&Hogan12thed.Para5.2.2,11.4.3.1,pages298-300,11.4.5
So
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(7) Criminal Attempts
Introduction
Bysection1(1)CriminalAttemptsAct1981theactusreusofanattempttocommitanoffenceisanact
morethanmerelypreparatorytothecommissionoftheoffence.Toconstituteanattempttheactmust
beaccompaniedbyanintentiontocommitthefulloffenceevenifthefulloffenceisonewhichrequiresa
lesserdegreeofmensrea(e.g.attemptedwoundingrequiresanintenttowound,attemptedmurderrequires
anintenttokill)orisanoffenceofstrictliability.Itdoesnotmatterthattheoffencewhichthedefendantis
intendingtocommitisimpossiblebyreasonoffactsunknowntohim(section1(2);Shivpuri
74
).Itisforthe
judgetodecidewhetherthereissuffcientevidenceofanattemptfortheissuetobelefttothejury;ifso,itis
forthejurytodecidewhethertheactsproveddoamounttoanattempt.
Directions
Thejudgeshouldfollowthewordsofthestatute.
75
Itis,however,commonpracticeand,saveintheobviouscase,usefultoexplainand/orillustratethe
differencebetweenanattempttocommitanoffenceandactspreparatorytoanoffence.Thejuryshould
betoldthattheissuewhethertheactwasmorethanmerelypreparatoryisforthemtodecide.
Whereimpossibilityhasfeaturedintheevidence,thejuryshouldbetoldthattheymustbesureofan
attempttocommittheoffenceintended(e.g.thefactthatthevictimspocketswereemptyisnodefence
toattemptedrobbery).
Sources
Archbold34-83/101;BlackstoneA1.3,A6.60/70;Smith&Hogan12thed.Para13.1/2
Footnotes
74
[1987]AC1(HL)
75
Rv.Campbell[1991]93CrAppR350
S7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(8) Parties to Crime
Introduction
Principal and Secondary Parties
1. InEnglandandWalesanoffencemaybecommittedbyaprincipalorasecondaryparty.Forpresent
purposesaprincipalparty(P)canbetakentomeanonewho,personally,orbymeansofaninnocent
agent,committedtheconductelementoftheoffenceortheactusreus.Theremaybemorethanone
principaloffenderwhentheconductamountingtotheactusreuswascommittedbymorethanone
person(e.g.ifP1andP2attackVwiththeirfsts,withintenttocausesomeharm,andtogetherdoreally
seriousharmtoV,theyarebothprincipalsintheoffenceofcausinggrievousbodilyharmcontrary
tosection20OffencesAgainstthePersonAct1861).Asecondaryparty(D)isonewho,whilenotthe
principaloffender,aids,abets,counselsorprocurestheoffence.
2. Bysection8AccessoriesandAbettorsAct1861,asamendedbytheCriminalLawAct1977Whosoever
shallaid,abet,counselorprocurethecommissionofanyindictableoffence.shallbeliabletobetried,
indictedandpunishedasaprincipaloffender.Forthepurposeoftrial,therefore,asecondaryoffenderis
tobetreatedinthesamewayasaprincipal.
3. However,secondaryliabilityforcommissionoftheoffenceisusuallyderivedfromtheconductof
theprincipaloffender.Forthisreasonitisimportantwhenframingdirectionstoidentify,ifpossible,
theconductoftheprincipaloffender(s)whichcomprisestheactusreus.Fromthisstartingpoint,the
conductandmensrearequiredtoprovetheguiltofasecondarypartycanbemorereadilyidentifedand
explained.Whentheprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantwasasecondarypartytotheoffenceitmay
beappropriatefortheindictmenttosayso
76
andfortheRoutetoVerdicttoidentifytheelementswhich
constitutethedefendantssecondaryliability.
Where the principal offender cannot be identifed
4. Itmaynotbepossiblefortheprosecutiontoidentifytheprincipaloffender,forexamplewhenoneofa
groupcarryingoutanattackonVproducesaknifeandstabsV.Thatwillnotsaveadefendantfrom
convictionfoundedontheactofstabbing,providedthatthejurycanbesurethatDwaseitherthe
principaloffenderwhostabbedVorasecondarypartytothatoffence.Whetherhewasaprincipalor
secondaryoffenderhecanbeconvictedasaprincipaloffenderbyvirtueoftheprovisionsofsection8of
the1861Act.
Routes to Principal or Secondary Liability
5. Legalliabilityforacriminaloffencemayarisebecausethedefendant:
(i)(a)eitheraloneorthroughtheinnocentagencyofanotherorincombinationwithanothercommitted
theoffence(principalorjointprincipal)
77
;
(i)(b)tookpartintheoffenceasasecondaryparty(aidingandabetting)
78
;
Footnotes
76
E.g.Archbold18-32
77
Archbold18-7/14,18;BlackstoneA5.1
78
Asfootnote71
S8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(ii) byhisownconductandwithintentassistedanothertocommittheoffence(aidingandabetting)
79
;
(iii) bywords,conductand/orpresence,intentionallyencouragedanothertocommittheoffence
(aidingandabetting)
80
;
(iv) directedor,withtherequisiteintention,enabledtheoffencecommitted(counsellingor
procuring)
81
;
(v) joinedandparticipatedinanenterprisetocommitoneoffenceinthecourseofwhich,asthe
defendanteitherintendedorrealised,theotheroffencewouldormightbecommitted(joint
enterprise)
82
.
6. Thecommonlawhasnotalwaysdevelopedconsistentlyfromestablishedprinciple;hence,thefrequent
callsforParliamentaryintervention.
83
However,secondaryliabilityisacommonlawdoctrinetherules
ofwhicharegenerallythesameirrespectiveofthecontextinwhichDprovidesencouragementor
assistanceandregardlessoftheseriousnessoftheprincipaloffence.
84
Requirements for Secondary Liability
7. Withsomeexceptions(forexample,insomecasesofcounsellingorprocuring
85
)thesecondaryliability
ofDisdependentuponorderivesfromthecommissionofaprincipaloffencebytheprincipaloffender,P.
ToprovethesecondaryliabilityofDtheprosecutionmustestablish
ConductbyDamountingtoassistanceto,orencouragementof,P;
AnintentiontoassistorencouragePtocommittheprincipaloffence;and
Dsknowledgeoftheessentialmatterswhichconstitutetheprincipaloffence.
86
Itisthethirdrequirementwhichhasgeneratedmostdebate.Theprincipaloffencecomprisesthe
conduct,qualifyingcircumstances,consequencesandfaultrequiredforitscommission.
However,thetermknowledgerequiresqualifcation.ItisnotnecessaryforDtoknowallthedetailsof
Psplansoroftheprincipaloffencecommittedprovidedheknowsthemattersessentialtotheprincipal
offence.Forexample,ifDsuppliesPwithajemmytoenablePtocommitaburglaryitisnotnecessaryto
Footnotes
79
Archbold18-10;BlackstoneA5.1
80
Archbold18-18,19;BlackstoneA5.13
81
Archbold18-20/24;BlackstoneA5.1;A5.11
82
Archbold18-15/17;BlackstoneA5.5/12
83
SeeLawCommissionReport(LawCom305)ParticipatinginCrimeMay2007,particularlyitsvaluableAppendixBTheCurrent
Lawhttp://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc305.pdf
84
LawCom305at2.4
85
See(iv)DirectingorEnablingbelow
86
Johnsonv.Youden[1950]1KB544atpage546
S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
provethatDknewthedate,timeandplaceoftheburglaryactuallycommitted.
87
Furthermore,theCourt
ofAppealhasfound,asasuffcientsubstituteforknowledge,theforesightbyDofarealpossibilitythatP
willactashedid.
88
ThisisanapplicationofthePowell,DanielsandEnglish
89
testinjointenterprisecasesto
situationswherenocommonpurposebetweenPandDisalleged.
Therequirementforknowledgeofconsequenceshasbeenmodifedincasesofconstructiveliabilityfor
theconsequencesuchasmurder,manslaughter,infictinggrievousbodilyharmandwounding,where
DknowsthattheconsequenceoftheactisariskthatPsactwillcausesomeharm.SoitisenoughifD
knows/foreseesthatPwillactinawaywhichcreatesanobviousriskofsomeharmtoVwhichinfact
causesdeath/grievousbodilyharm/wound.
AstofaultthedefendantmustbeawarethatPwillactwiththeintentionrequiredtocommitthe
offence.InacaseofmurderDmustbeawareoftherealpossibilitythatPwillactwiththeintentrequired
formurder.
90
WherethefoundationforthesecondaryliabilityofDforoffenceYishisparticipationinajoint
enterpriseorcommonpurposetocommitoffenceX,knowledgeoftheintentionofPforthe
commissionofoffenceYistobeinterpretedasforesightofarealpossibilitythatPwillactwiththeintent
requiredfortheoffence.SoifPandDembarkonarobberyinthecourseofwhichPkillswithintenttodo
reallyseriousbodilyharm,Disguiltyofmurderifheparticipatedintherobberyknowingtherewasareal
possibilitythatPmight,ifconfronted,attackVwithintenttodoreallyseriousbodilyharm.
91
AnoffencemaybecounselledifDadvisesorsolicitsit.Theprosecutiondoesnothavetoprovethat
thecounsellingcausedtheoffence;onlythatDcounselledtheoffencewhichwascommittedbyPacting
withinthescopeofhisauthority.
92

Procuring,however,denotessettingouttoseethat[athing]happensandtakingtheappropriatesteps
toproducethathappening.
93
Theremustacausallinkbetweentheprocuringandtheeventprocured.
Joint Enterprise and the Foresight Principle
8. InPowellandEnglish
94
theHouseofLordsconfrmedandendorsedalineofauthoritythatinjoint
enterprisecasesthetestforthesecondaryliabilityofD,whenPwentfurtherthanDintended,was
whetherD,foreseeingthatPmayactashedidinfurtheranceofthecommondesign,nevertheless
participatedinthejointenterprise.LordHuttonsaid:
95

Footnotes
87
Bainbridge[1960]1QB129
88
Reardon[1999]CrimLR392(seepara12below);Bryce[2004]EWCACrim1231;[2004]CrimLR936(seeProfessorAshworths
commentaryupontheextensionoftheprinciple);Webster[2006]EWCACrim415at21-25;NotealsoSmith&Hogan12edpp
198-218
89
[1999]AC1;[1997]UKHL45
90
PowellandEnglish[1999]AC1;[1997]UKHL45
91
ChanWing-Sui[1985]1AC168(PC);HuiChi-Ming[1992]1AC34(PC).
92
Calhaem[1985]QB808,[1985]81CrAppR131
93
AttorneyGeneralsReference(No1of1975)[1975]QB773,[1975]61CrAppR118
94
[1999]AC1
95
Atpage15
o0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
TheprinciplestatedinReg.v.Smith[1963]1WLR1200wasappliedbythePrivyCouncilinChanWing-Siu
v.TheQueen[1985]A.C.168inthejudgmentdeliveredbySirRobinCookewhostated,atp.175:The
casemustdependratheronthewiderprinciplewherebyasecondarypartyiscriminallyliableforacts
bytheprimaryoffenderofatypewhichtheformerforeseesbutdoesnotnecessarilyintend.Thatthere
issuchaprincipleisnotindoubt.Itturnsoncontemplationor,puttingthesameideainotherwords,
authorisation,whichmaybeexpressorismoreusuallyimplied.Itmeetsthecaseofacrimeforeseenasa
possibleincidentofthecommonunlawfulenterprise.Thecriminalculpabilityliesinparticipatinginthe
venturewiththatforesight
TheprinciplestatedbySirRobinCookeinChanWing-Siuscasewasfollowedandappliedinthejudgment
oftheCourtofAppealinReg.v.Hyde[1991]1Q.B.134,whereLordLaneC.J.tookaccountofProfessor
SmithscommentonReg.v.Wakely[1990]CrimLR119thatthereisadistinctionbetweentacitagreement
andforesightandmadeitclearthatthelatteristhepropertest.
9. Where,however,theactcommittedbyPisfundamentallydifferentfromthatcontemplatedbyD,Dwill
notbeliable.LordHuttonsaid:
96
Mr.Sallon,fortheappellant,advancedtoyourLordshipsHousethesubmission(whichdoesnotappear
tohavebeenadvancedintheCourtofAppeal)thatinacasesuchasthepresentonewheretheprimary
partykillswithadeadlyweapon,whichthesecondarypartydidnotknowthathehadandthereforedid
notforeseehisuseofit,thesecondarypartyshouldnotbeguiltyofmurder.Hesubmittedthattobe
guiltyundertheprinciplestatedinChanWing-Siuthesecondarypartymustforeseeanactofthetype
whichtheprincipalpartycommitted,andthatinthepresentcasetheuseofaknifewasfundamentally
differenttotheuseofawoodenpost.
MyLords,Iconsiderthatthissubmissioniscorrect.Itfndsstrongsupportinthepassageofthejudgment
ofLordParkerC.J.inReg.v.Anderson;Reg.v.Morris[1966]2Q.B.110,120whichIhavesetoutearlier,
butwhichitisconvenienttosetoutagaininthisportionofthejudgment:
It seems to this court that to say that adventurers are guilty of manslaughter when one of them has
departedcompletelyfromtheconcertedactionofthecommondesignandhassuddenlyformedanintent
tokillandhasusedaweaponandactedinawaywhichnopartytothatcommondesigncouldsuspectis
somethingwhichwouldrevolttheconscienceofpeopletoday.
ThejudgmentinChanWing-Siuscase[1985]A.C.168alsosupportstheargumentadvancedon
behalfoftheappellantbecauseSirRobinCookestated,atp.175:
Thecasemustdependratheronthewiderprinciplewherebyasecondarypartyiscriminallyliablefor
actsbytheprimaryoffenderofatypewhichtheformerforeseesbutdoesnotnecessarilyintend.
10. ItshouldbenotedthatthefactPsactwasfundamentallydifferentfromthosecontemplatedbythe
commondesignisnotidentifedbyLordHuttonasaseparatetestbywhichDsliabilityshouldbe
excluded;rather,itisanapplicationoftheevidencetotheforesighttest.Iftheactwasfundamentally
differentfromtheagreedcourseofactionitis,ontheevidence,improbableorimpossiblethatDwas
awarePmightactashedidinfurtheranceofthecommondesign.
Footnotes
96
Atpage21
o1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
11. Theissueforthejurywillbewhether,whenparticipatinginoffenceX,Dforesawthat,inthecourseof
committingit:
therewasarealriskthatPwouldcommittheconductelementoftheoffenceY,
withknowledgeoftheprescribedcircumstanceswhichmakeitanoffence,and
thatPmightcommittheconductelementofoffenceYwiththemensrearequiredforoffenceY.
ProfessorSirJohnSmithQCcalledthisparasiticaccessoryliability.
97
Extension of the Foresight Principle

12. ThecaseofReardon
98
isimportantbecauseitappliedPowellandEnglishprinciplestoadefendant
(D)whowasnotinvolvedinajointenterprisewithP.Pshottwomeninabarandwasassisted
byotherstoremovetheirbodiestothegarden.Preturnedtothebarandsaid,[Hes]stillalive,
notdistinguishingbetweenthetwovictims,andaskedDtolendhimhisknifewhichDpromptly
handedover.Pusedtheknifetofnishoffbothvictims.TheCourtofAppealheldthatDwaseither
guiltyofbothmurdersorofneither.DwasguiltyofbothmurdersbecauseheforesawthatP
wouldusetheknifetofnishoffoneofthevictims;thus,hemusthaveforeseenasarealpossibility
thatPwouldusetheknifetofnishofftheotherifnecessary.DsliabilitywasformulateduponDs
foresightoftherealpossibilitiesarisingfromDsactofassistanceeventhoughtherewasalackof
commonpurposeasinChanWingSiu
99
andPowellandEnglish
100
.Inhiscommentaryuponthe
judgmentdeliveredbyBeldamLJ,ProfessorSirJohnSmithQCnotedtheextensionoftheprinciple
ofcommonpurpose.
101
Footnotes
97
Smith&Hogan12ed.Page209
98
[1999]CrimLR392;seealsoBryce[2004]EWCACrim1231;[2004]CrimLR936andProfessorAshworthscommentaryuponthe
extensionoftheprinciple;andWebster[2006]EWCACrim415at21-25
99
[1985]AC168
100
[1999]AC1
101
ProfessorSmithwrote:Thisisaveryimportantdecisionbecauseitappearstodecidethattheprinciplesapplicabletoan
accessorywhosharesacommonpurposewiththeprincipalareequallyapplicabletoanaccessorywhodoesnot.Probablymost
accessorieshaveacommoncriminalpurposebutsomedonot.Forexample:(i)B,knowingthatAintendstocommitmurder,sells
himagun,beinginterestedonlyinthecashproftandcompletelyindifferentwhetherAusestheguntocommitmurder.Adoes
souseit.(ii)BmerelyencouragesAwhohasalreadymadeuphismindtocommitthecrime:Giannetto[1997]1Cr.App.R.1;
[1996]Crim.L.R.722;oraspectatorurgesonthecombatantsinanunlawfulfght.(iii)BprocuresAtocommitthecrimewithout
Asknowledgeorconsent.HelacesAsdrink,knowingthatthiswillcauseAtodrivewithexcessalcohol.Wherethereisacommon
purpose,itisclearlysettledthatBisliable,notonlyfor(i)thecommissionbyAofacrimewhichitwastheircommonpurposeto
commit,butalsofor(ii)thecommissionbyAofadifferentcrime,whichitwasnottheircommonpurposetocommit,butwhichB
knewthatAmightcommitinthecourseofexecutingthecommonpurpose.Forthepurposesofexposition,(ii)maybedesignated
parasiticaccessoryliability.SeeCriminalLiabilityofAccessories(1997)93L.Q.R.453at444-445.Thequestioniswhether
parasiticliabilityappliesincaseswherethereisnocommonpurpose.Thepresentcaseseemstodecidethatitdoes,atleastinthe
circumstancesofexample(i),above.
o2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
101 (contd)
TheappellantreliedonapropositioninSmith&Hogan,p.142,totheeffectthatifBassistsorencouragesAtocommitacrime
againstaparticular,specifed,person,X,heisnotliableifAintentionallycommitsanoffenceofthesametypeagainstanother
person,Y.Thereisnothingcontroversialaboutthisproposition-ithaslongbeenstatedintheworksofauthorityonthecriminal
lawandthepresentcourtcastsnodoubtonit.Hereassistancewasgivenforthepurposeofkillingonlyoneperson,butthatone
wasnotdesignated.Thekillerapparentlyhadonlyonepersoninmind,whenheborrowedtheknifebuttheintendedvictimwas
anunspecifedoneoftwo.Thereisnowayofdistinguishingbetweenthetwovictims.IfMhadkilledonlyone,thecasewould
havebeenquitestraightforward;buthekilledtwowiththeknife,goingbeyondhisdeclaredpurpose.Theappellantwasguilty
oftwomurdersorofnone.ThecourtfndsthatheisguiltyofbothbyvirtueofwhatmaybecalledtheChanWingSiu/Powell/
Englishprinciple.Hemusthaveforeseen(andthereforedidforesee)thattherewasatleastthestrongpossibility-presumably
thesameastherealriskreferredtoinsomeearliercases-thatMwouldcommit,notonlytheonemurderactuallyencouraged,
butthesecondmurderaswell.
Inthiscasetheoffenceexpresslyencouragedandtheoffenceforeseenasarealriskwerethesame-murder.Buttheprinciple
wouldappeartoapplywheretheforeseenoffenceisgreaterthantheoffenceintentionallyencouragedorassisted.D,comingby
chanceuponhisfriendEresistingarrestbyaconstable,tripsupanotheroffcercomingtotheassistanceofthefrst.Heintends
toassist,anddoesassist,Etoresistlawfularrest.Edrawsaknifeandstabstheconstablethroughtheheart.IfDknewthatE
habituallycarriedaknifeandthattherewasarealrisk,astrongpossibility,that,inthesecircumstances,hewouldusetheknife
withintenttokill,Dwouldbeguiltyofmurder.Thosewhothinkthelawisalreadytooseveremaybedismayedbythisresult.No
doubttheLawCommissionisgivingcloseattentiontothesedevelopmentsinitsreconsiderationofthelawrelatingtosecondary
liability.[J.C.S.]
102
[2004]EWCACrim1231;[2004]CrimLR936
103
[1993]2AllER955and[1993]CrimLR698
104
At71
13. InBryce
102
DdrovePcarryingashotguntoacaravanwherePcouldwatchthemovementsofV.Thirteen
hourslaterPshotVtodeath.DsdefencewasthathedidnotknowPwascarryingashotgun.Hewasjust
givinghimalift.DarguedthatevenifhewasawarethatPwasthinkingofshootingV,hewasnotliableas
anaccessorybecausehecouldnotanddidnotknowthatPintendedtoshootVwhenPdidnotformthat
intentionforseveralhours.PotterLJobservedthattheCourtofAppealhadalreadyextendedthePowell
andEnglishprincipletoassistancegivenbeforethecommissionoftheoffence.InRook
103
LloydLJsaid:
Itisnowwellestablishedthatinacaseofjointenterprise,wherethepartiesarebothpresentatthescene
ofthecrime,itisnotnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoshowthatthesecondarypartyintendedthevictim
tobekilled,ortosufferseriousinjury.Itisenoughthatheshouldhaveforeseentheevent,asarealor
substantialrisk:seeChanWing-siuvR[1984]3AllER877,[1985]AC168,RvHyde[1990]3AllER892,[1991]
1QB134andHuiChi-mingvR[1991]3AllER897,[1992]1AC34.Thus,asecondarypartymaybeliable
fortheunintendedconsequencesoftheprincipalsacts,providedtheprincipaldoesnotgooutsidethe
scopeofthejointenterprise.
Weseenoreasonwhythesamereasoningshouldnotapplyinthecaseofasecondarypartywholends
assistanceorencouragementbeforethecommissionofthecrime.
14. PotterLJcontinued:
104
Weareoftheviewthat,outsidethePowellandEnglishsituation(violencebeyondthelevelanticipatedin
thecourseofajointcriminalenterprise),whereadefendant,D,ischargedasthesecondarypartytoan
offencecommittedbyPinrelianceonactswhichhaveassistedstepstakenbyPinthepreliminarystages
ofacrimelatercommittedbyPintheabsenceofD,itisnecessaryfortheCrowntoproveintentional
assistancebyDinthesenseofanintentiontoassist(andnottohinderorobstruct)PinactswhichD
knowsarestepstakenbyPtowardsthecommissionoftheoffence.Withoutsuchintentionthemensrea
o3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
willbeabsentwhetherasamatterofdirectintentonthepartofDorbywayofanintentsuffcientforDto
beliableonthebasisofcommonpurposeorjointenterprise.Thus,theprosecutionmustprove:
(a)anactdonebyDwhichinfactassistedthelatercommissionoftheoffence,
(b)thatDdidtheactdeliberatelyrealisingthatitwascapableofassistingtheoffence,
(c)thatDatthetimeofdoingtheactcontemplatedthecommissionoftheoffencebyAi.e.he
foresawitasarealorsubstantialriskorrealpossibilityand,
(d)thatDwhendoingtheactintendedtoassistAinwhathewasdoing.
15. InWebster
105
,DhandedthecontrolsofacartoPwhomheknewtobedrunk.ItwasarguedonDsbehalf
thathecouldnotbecriminallyliableforPsdangerousdriving.TheCourtofAppealdisagreed.MosesLJ
said:
106
TheveryfoundationofthedecisioninRvPowell&English[1999]AC1isacceptanceoftheprinciplethat
asecondarypartyiscriminallyliablefortheactsoftheprincipalifheforeseesthoseactseventhoughhe
doesnotnecessarilyintendthemtooccur(seee.g.LordHuttonatpage27topage28).Evidencethatthe
appellantknewthatWestbrookhadnotonlybeendrinkingbutappearedtobeintoxicatedwaspowerful
evidencethatheforesawWestbrookwaslikelytodriveinadangerousmanneratthetimehepermitted
himtodrive.ButevidenceofWestbrooksapparentintoxicationdidnotdeterminetheissue.Itwasmerely
evidencewhichtendedtoprovetheconclusionwhichthejuryhadtoreachbeforeitconvictedhim.In
short,themoredrunkWestbrookappearedtobe,theeasieritwasfortheprosecutiontoprovethatthe
appellantforesawthathewaslikelytodrivedangerouslyifhepermittedhimtodrive.
Hecontinued:
107
Further,wemustemphasisewhattheprosecutionhadtoproveinrelationtotheappellantsstateofmind.It
acceptedthatitwasnotsuffcienttoprovethattheappellantoughttohaveforeseenthatWestbrookwould
drivedangerously.TheprosecutionhadtoprovethattheappellantdidforeseethatWestbrookwaslikelyto
drivedangerouslywhenhepermittedhimtogetintothedriversseat(seeBlakely,SuttonvDPP[1991]Crim
LR763).Westresstheneedtofocusupontheappellantsstateofmindbecauseofcertaincriticismsmadein
relationtothewordingofthejudgesdirectionstothejuryonthisissue.Generallytheprosecutionwillbe
abletoprovetheactualstateofmindofthedefendant,absentanyconfession,byreferencetowhatmust
havebeenobvioustohimfromallthesurroundingcircumstances.Butitisimportanttodistinguishbetween
thatwhichmusthavebeenobvioustoadefendantandwhatthedefendantforesaw.Inmostcasesthere
willbenospacebetweenthetwoconcepts;iftheprosecutioncanprovewhatmusthavebeenobvious,it
willgenerallybeabletoprovewhatthedefendantdidforesee.Butthedangerofelidingthetwoconcepts,
namelywhatthedefendantdidforeseeandwhathemusthaveforeseen,isthatitmightsuggestthatitis
suffcienttoprovewhatthedefendantoughttohaveforeseen.Thatisnotenough.Itisthedefendants
foresightthattheprincipalwaslikelytocommittheoffencewhichmustbeprovedandnotmerelythathe
oughttohaveforeseenthattheprincipalwaslikelytocommittheoffence.
We conclude that in order to prove that the appellant was guilty of aiding and abetting Westbrook to
drivedangerously,theprosecutionhadtoprovethatatthetimehepermittedhimtodriveheforesawthat
Westbrookwaslikelytodriveinadangerousmanner.
Footnotes
105
[2006]EWCACrim415
106
At23
107
At25and26
o4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
16. Itissuggestedthattheforesightprincipleisequallyapplicabletooffencesofcounsellingandprocuring
and,forthesamepolicyreasons,ifDforesawasarealpossibilitythatPwouldexceedtheactshewas
counsellingorprocuring,heshouldbeliableasasecondaryparty.
The trial judges task
17. Itwillusuallybeunnecessaryforthejudgetoembarkonafullexplanationoftermswhichdefnecriminal
liability.Itisenough,andmorehelpful,toinformthejurywhatitistheprosecutionmustprovebefore
thedefendantcanbeconvicted.Thereisnoneed,forexample,toembarkonalengthyexpositionofthe
lawofjointenterprisewhenitiscommongroundtheoffencewascommittedbyatleastoneindividual
andthesoleissueiswhetherthedefendantparticipated.Itwillbenecessaryonlytoidentifytheactof
participationandthestateofmindwhichtheprosecutionmustprovetoestablishthedefendantsguilt.
Ineverycaseitwillbenecessaryforthejudgetoidentifywhatmustbeprovedagainstadefendantwithin
thefactualcontextofthecasebeforehim.
18. Inthemorecomplexcasesinwhichthejurywillneedtoconsiderthedifferentpositionsofmultiple
defendants,orwherethepolicyofthelawtowardsliabilityofsecondarypartiesisnotstraightforward,it
maywellbenecessarytogiveafullerexplanationandtoprovidethejuryeitherwithwrittendirectionsor
anoteexplainingtheirroutetoverdictsorboth.
Directions
(i) Participation (Simple Joint Enterprise)
Thejuryshouldbedirectedthattheoffencechargedcanbecommittedbyonepersonormorethanone
person.Iftwoormorepeopleacttogetherwithacommoncriminalpurposetocommitanoffencethey
areeachresponsible,althoughthepartstheyplaywhencarryingoutthatpurposemaybedifferent.For
example,twoburglarsmayenterahousetogetherandtogetherremoveatelevisionset.Theyareboth
guiltyofburglary.Or,oneburglarmayenterthehousewhiletheotherkeepswatchforhimoutside.
Again,theyarebothguiltyofburglary.
Theprosecutionmustproveparticipationbythedefendantwithacommonpurpose.Whileparticipation
withacommonpurposeimpliesanagreementtoacttogether(ajointenterprise),noformalityis
required.Theagreementcanbemadetacitlyandspontaneously,andmaybeinferredfromthe
defendantsactions.
Whentwoormorepeopleacttogethertobringabouttheresult,theirparticipationneednotbeprecisely
contemporaneous;onemaybeginandothersjoinin.Forexample,ifD1attacksVandD2joinsin,and
Vsuffersreallyseriousharm,eachisliableforcausinggrievousbodilyharmcontrarytosection20OAPA
1861.Thejuryneednotbeconcernedtoisolatetheactsoftheparticipantsinordertodecidewhichof
themcausedthereallyseriousinjury;theyarebothliableiftheyparticipatedtogetherinactswhichthey
knewriskedcausingbodilyinjuryandwhichactuallycausedreallyseriousbodilyinjury.
108
Footnotes
108
Grundy89CrAppR333.SeealsoPartiestoaJointEnterprise
oS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ThefrstIllustrationisdesignedtorefectadirectioninastraightforwardcase.ThesecondIllustration
isdesignedtodealwiththecut-throatdefence.
109
Illustration two co-accused burglary - common purpose inferring the common purpose parts
played in fulflling the common purpose verdicts need not be the same
Anoffencemaybecommittedbyonepersonactingaloneorbymorethanonepersonactingtogetherwith
thesamecriminalpurpose.
Thedefendantsagreementtoacttogetherneednothavebeenexpressedinwords.Itmaybetheresult
ofplanningoritmaybeatacitunderstandingreachedbetweenthemonthespurofthemoment.Their
agreementcanbeinferredfromthecircumstances.
Thosewhocommitcrimetogethermayplaydifferentpartstoachievetheirpurpose.Theprosecutionmust
provethateachdefendanttooksomepart.
HeretheprosecutioncaseisthatD1andD2actedtogethertocommitburglary.D1spartwastoenterthe
houseandremoveproperty.D2spartwastokeepwatchoutside.Theiractions,theprosecutionasserts,
clearlyhadacommonpurpose.
D1sdefenceisthathewasnotpresent;D2sdefenceisthatalthoughhewasoutsidetheproperty,hewas
nottheretotakepartinanyoffence.
IfyouaresureD1andD2didacttogethertocommittheoffenceyourverdictisguiltyinthecaseofeach
defendant.
Youmustconsiderthecaseofeachdefendantseparately.Itisopentoyoutoconcludethatyourverdicts
shouldbethesameineachcasebutitdoesnotfollowthattheyhavetobe.Providedyouaresurethata
burglarywascommittedbyoneormorethanperson,ifyouaresurethatonedefendanttooksomepartin
thatoffencebutyouarenotsureabouttheother,yourverdictcanbeguiltyinrespectofonedefendantand
notguiltyinrespectoftheother.
Illustration two co-accused section 18 grievous bodily harm joint assault on V dispute which
accused caused grievous bodily harm joint enterprise to cause some harm defendant may be either
principal or secondary offender
D1andD2arejointlychargedwithcausinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent,contrarytosection18Offences
AgainstthePersonAct1861,and,inthealternative,withthelesseroffenceofinfictinggrievousbodily
harm,contrarytosection20.
Footnotes
109
SwindellandOsborne[1846]2C&K230,175ER95;Mohan[1967]2AC187(Itisnotessentialtoprovetheroleofeachdefendant
providedthathewaseitheraprincipalorasecondaryparty)
oo
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
TheybothadmitthattheytookparttogetherinanunlawfulassaultuponVbykickinghimwhilehewason
theground.Vsufferedseriousinjuriesfromkicksdeliveredtohishead.Itisclear,andthedefendantsdonot
contest,thatwhoeverdeliveredthosekickscausedreallyseriousinjuryandintendedtodoso.However,each
ofthemdeniesaimingkickstothehead;eachblamestheother;eachsaysheintendedtocauseVonlysome
physicalharmbykickinghimtohislegsandbody.Theybothsaythattheactofkickingtotheheadwas
quitedifferentfromtheassaulttheyintendedoranticipated.
ThedefendantsjointlyembarkedontheunlawfulassaultofVandeachofthemacceptsthatheintended
tocausesomeharm.Theyareeachliablefortheactsoftheotherandeachofthemisatleastguiltyof
infictinggrievousbodilyharm,count2.However,theprosecutioncaseisthattheyarebothguiltyofcount
1,causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent.
Count1requirestheproofofaspecifcintent,namelytheintenttodoreallyseriousharm.Therearetwo
waysinwhichtheprosecutioncanestablishthatintentagainsteachdefendant.Thefrstistoprovethatthe
defendant,atthetimeofthejointassault,kickedVtotheheadpersonallyintendingthatVshouldsuffer
reallyseriousharm.Alternatively,theprosecutionmayprovethatthedefendantparticipatedorcontinuedto
participateintheassaultrealisingthattherewasarealrisktheothermay,inthecourseofthejointassault,
kickVtotheheadwithintenttodohimreallyseriousharm.
Ihavepreparedanotewhichwillenableyoutoapproachtheseissuessequentiallyinordertoarriveatyour
verdicts.Letusreadittogether.
Pleaseapplythefollowingquestionstothecaseofeachdefendantinturn.Answerthefrstquestion
andproceedasdirected.
Question 1
Didthedefendanttakepartwithhisco-accusedinanunlawfulassaultonVintendingtocausesomebodily
orrealisingthatsomebodilyinjurymaybecaused?
Question 2
DidV,inconsequenceofthejointassault,sufferreallyseriousinjury?
o7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 3
Didthedefendanteither
(i) kickVtotheheadintendingthatVshouldsufferreallyseriousinjury;or
(ii) takepartintheattackrealisingthattherewasarealriskthathisco-accusedmightkickVtothehead
withintenttocausehimreallyseriousinjury;or
(iii) continuetotakepartintheattackrealisingthathisco-accusedwaskickingVtotheheadandmight
bedoingsowithintenttocauseVreallyseriousharm?
Ifyouaresureofeither(i)or(ii)or(iii),verdictguiltycount1,causinggrievousbodilyharmwith
intent
Ifyouarenotsureofeither(i)or(ii)or(iii),verdictguiltycount2
110
(ii) Defendant Not Present Assisting Another to Commit the Offence
Thissituationwillarisewhentheprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantfacilitatedtheoffencewithintent
butdidnototherwisetakepartinit,forexample,bythesupplyofaweapon,oracar,orinformation,with
foreknowledgeoftheintendedoffence.
Thejuryshouldbedirectedthattheprosecutionmustprovethat
theoffencewascommitted,
thedefendanthadforeknowledgeoftheoffence,
thedefendantintendedtoassisttheoffenceand
thedefendantinfactassistedtheoffence.
However,foreknowledgedoesnothavetobecompleteprovidedthatthedefendantknewofthekindof
offenceincontemplation,thatheintendedtoassist,andthathedidassist.
111
SeealsoGeneralIntroductionparagraphs12-15above
Footnotes
110
IfoneofthedefendantsmayhaveinjuredVinamannerfundamentallydifferentfromthatcontemplatedbythejointenterprise,
e.g.bytakingahousebrickandstrikingVovertheheadwithit,afurtherstepwouldberequired.See(v)JointEnterprisebelow.
111
Maxwell[1978]1WLR1363,68CrAppR128;Rv.Bryce[2004]2CrAppR35,[2004]EWCACrim1231
o8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration supply of weapon the elements of secondary liability
Thedefendantacceptsthathesupplieda......to.......on.....
Theevidenceisthat.....wasusedby.....tocommitanoffenceof.....on.....
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthe....wassuppliedbythedefendanttoassistthecommissionoftheoffence
by.;thatbeingso,thedefendantisguiltyoftheoffencejustaswerethosewhosetouttocommitit.
Inordertoprovethatthedefendantisguiltytheprosecutionmustprovethat(1)theoffencewascommitted,
(2)itwasassistedbyuseofa.....and(3)thedefendantsuppliedthe....knowingthatothersintendedtouse
itforthatoffenceorforanoffenceofthesamekind.Itisnotnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoprovethat
thedefendantknewofthedateonwhich,ortheprecisecircumstancesinwhich,the.....wouldbeusedor
theprecisecrimewhichwastobecommitted.Itisenoughfortheprosecutiontoprovethatheintentionally
assistedotherstocommitacrimeofthekindwhichtheythenwentontocommit.
(iii) Presence at and Encouragement of Another to Commit the Offence
Intentionalencouragementtoothersatthescenetocommittheoffencerendersthedefendantguiltyofthe
offence.
112
Merevoluntarypresenceatthesceneofacrimeisnotenoughtoprovecomplicitybutdeliberateand
unexplainedpresencemaygiverisetoaninferenceofanintentiontoencourageit.
113
Ifthedefendantispresentintendingbyhispresencetoencourageandisactually,byhispresence,
encouragingotherstocommittheoffencethenheisguilty.
114
Illustration intentional encouragement by words or conduct
Thedefendantadmitsbeingpresentatthecommissionoftheoffencechargedbuthiscaseisthathetook
nopartinit.Itisnotanoffencemerelytobepresentwhenacrimeiscommitted;nor,indeed,inthepresent
circumstances,tostandbywithouttakingstepstopreventit.
115
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendant
didtakepartbyencouragingtheothers.Heencouragedthemby.
Theprosecutionmustprove(1)thedefendantspresenceatthescene,(2)hisintention,by.,toencourage
theotherstocommittheoffenceand(3)thathedidinfactencouragetheotherstocommittheoffence..
Footnotes
112
Rv.Clarkson[1971]1WLR1402,[1971]55CrAppR445
113
Rv.JonesandMirrless65CrAppR250;Rv.Allan[1965]1QB130,47CrAppR243;Rv.Clarkson(supra)
114
Rv.Coney(1882)8QBD534;Wilcoxv.Jeffrey[1951]1AllER464
115
Contra,whenthedefendantispresentinpursuanceofacommondesigntocommittheoffence.ToavoidresponsibilityforPs
actcommittedinthecourseofthejointenterprisehemustmakeaneffectivewithdrawalofsupportandparticipation:Becerraand
Cooper[1976]62CrAppR212atpage219
o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration intentional encouragement by presence alone
Thedefendantadmitsbeingpresentatthecommissionoftheoffencechargedbuthiscaseisthathetook
nopartinit.Itisnotanoffencemerelytobepresentwhenacrimeiscommitted;nor,indeed,inthepresent
circumstances,tostandbywithouttakingstepstopreventit.Theprosecutioncaseisthathedidtakepartby
encouragingtheotherswithhispresence.
Theprosecutionmustprove(1)thedefendantspresenceatthescene,(2)hisintention,byhispresence,to
encouragetheotherstocommittheoffenceand(3)thathedid,byhispresence,encouragetheothersto
committheoffence.
(iv) Counselling or Procuring (Directing or Enabling) the Offence
1. Thetermsdirectingorenablingarealsousedsinceprocuringbyasecondaryoffenderdoesnot
necessarilyimplyacommondesignwiththeprincipal.Secondaryliabilitywillnotnecessarilybe
derivedfromtheoffencecommittedbyP.Anofaultoffencemaybeprocuredinthesensethat
thedefendantsconductwascalculatedtobringtheoffenceabout.
116
2. IfDdirectsPtocommitanoffence,andPcommitstheoffenceasordered,Disalsoguiltyofthe
offenceasanaccessory.
117
ThedirectionofPbyDmaybeconsensual,oritmaybetheresultof
pressureorduress.
3. Inacaseofdirection,iftheharmDdirectedwasachieved,thefactthatthemeansusedbyPto
achieveitwasdifferentfromthatcontemplatedbyDdoesnotprovideDwithadefence(e.g.ifa
killingisorderedbyshooting,thedefendantisguiltyofamurdercausedbystabbinginthecourseof
carryingoutthatorder).
4. Where,however,theactscommittedwentbeyondwhatthedefendantdirecteditisnecessaryto
examinewhethertheywereneverthelesswithinthescopeofthedirection.Itissuggestedthatupon
anapplicationoftheapproachoftheCourtofAppealinReardon
118
,itispermissibletoequatethe
scopeofthedirectionwiththescopeofthecommonpurposebetweenDandP,sincetheprinciple
beingappliedinbothcasesisoneofparasiticliability.PsactswillbewithinthescopeofDs
directionifDrealisedtherewasarealpossibilitythatwhencarryingoutthosedirectionsPwouldact
ashedid.
119
If,however,Psactswerefundamentallydifferentfromthosedirecteditisunlikelythat
theprosecutionwillprovehisforesightofthoseacts.
120
Footnotes
116
Att.-GensReference(No1of1975)(supra)
117
Att.-GensReference(No1of1975)[1975]QB773;ChanWing-Siuv.TheQueen[1985]AC165(PC),atp.175,perSirRobinCooke;
BrownandIsaacv.TheState[2003]UKPC10,para8,perLordHoffman.
118
SeeGeneralIntroductionparagraphs8-15above
119
Rv.Hyde[1991]1QB134;Rv.Rahman[2008]3WLR264;[2008]UKHL45
120
Rv.Anderson,Rv.Morris[1966]2QB110;Rv.Smith(Wesley)[1963]1WLR1200;Rv.GambleandOthers[1989]NI268(butsee
doubtsexpressedbythemajorityinRahman[2008]UKHL45astothecorrectnessofthedecisioninGambleonitsfacts)
70
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. InthecaseofcrimesrequiringaspecifcintenttheidentityoftheoffencecommittedbyDisregulated
byhisownstateofmind,buttheprosecutiondoesnothavetoprovethatDhimselfpossessedthe
specifcintent,onlythatDforesawtherealpossibilitythatPwould,whencarryingouthisorder,act
withthatspecifcintent.
121
If,forexample,thedefendantorderedabeatingandthevictimdiedfrom
thebeatingdelivered,heisguiltyofmurderonlyifhehadtheintentrequiredformurderorherealised
thatthebeatingwouldormightbecarriedoutwiththeintentrequiredformurder.Ifnot,heisguiltyof
manslaughter.
122
6. Counsellingembracesadvising,solicitingandencouraging.ItisnotnecessarythatDscounsellingcaused
theoffence,butitisnecessarythattheactcounselledwasperformedwithinthescopeoftheauthorityD
hadbestoweduponP.InCalhaem
123
ParkerLJsaid:
Wemustthereforeapproachthequestionraisedonthebasisthatweshouldgivetothewordcounsel
itsordinarymeaning,whichis,asthejudgesaid,advise,solicit,orsomethingofthatsort.Thereisno
implicationintheworditselfthatthereshouldbeanycausalconnectionbetweenthecounsellingandthe
offence.Itistruethat,unliketheoffenceofincitementatcommonlaw,theactualoffencemusthavebeen
committed,andcommittedbythepersoncounselled.Tothisextenttheremustclearlybe,frst,contact
betweentheparties,and,secondly,aconnectionbetweenthecounsellingandthemurder.Equally,the
act done must, we think, be done within the scope of the authority or advice, and not, for example,
accidentallywhenthemindofthefnalmurdererdidnotgowithhisactions.Forexample,iftheprincipal
offenderhappenedtobeinvolvedinafootballriotinthecourseofwhichhelaidabouthimwithaweapon
ofsomesortandkilledsomeonewho,unknowntohim,wasthepersonwhomhehadbeencounselled
tokill,hewouldnot,inourview,havebeenactingwithinthescopeofhisauthority;hewouldhavebeen
actingentirelyoutsideit,albeitwhathehaddonewaswhathehadbeencounselledtodo.
7. Aswithprocuring,itisarguablethatthereis,inprinciple,noreasonwhythetestforparasiticliability
shouldnotapplytocounsellingPtocommitanoffence,wherePgoesbeyondtheactswhichD
counselled.Thequestionsforthejurywillbe(i)whethertheactdonebyPwaswithinscopeoftheacts
counselledbyD(DcounselledPknowingtherewasarealpossibilityof),and(2)whetherDhadthe
intentionrequiredorknew,whencounsellingtheact,thattherewasarealpossibilitythatPwouldact
withthespecifcintentrequired.
Footnotes
121
Rv.Powell,Rv.English[1999]AC1
122
Rv.Gilmour[2000]2CrAppR407,[2000]NICA10;Stewart[1995]3AllER159.SeealsothereferencetoReardon[1999]CrimLR
392andtothecommentaryofProfessorSmithatGeneralIntroductionparagraphs12-15above.
123
[1985]QB808,[1985]81CrAppR131
71
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration prosecution case D hired P1 and P2 to cause V really serious harm Ds case is that he
hired them to do V some physical harm fundamentally different act alternative offences
On.....two men called at the home of the complainant, V. They subjected him to a severe beating with
baseballbats.TheyleftVwithbrokencheekbonesandamultitudeofbruises.Itisacceptedbythedefence
thatthoseinjuriesconstitutedreallyseriousbodilyharmcommittedwithintenttodoreallyseriousbodily
harm.
OneofthosemenwasP1.On....P1pleadedguiltytotheoffenceofcausinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent.
Hehasgivenevidencefortheprosecution.HetoldyouthatheandP2werehiredbythedefendanttogive
thecomplainantthehidingofhislife.
ThedefendantadmitshiringP1andP2toassaultVbutonlytosoftenhimup.Hesayshehadnoidea
theyweregoingtousebaseballbatsanddidnotintendthecomplainanttosufferseriousinjury.
Adefendantwhohiresotherstocommitanoffenceisguiltyoftheoffenceiftheygoontocommitit.Here
thedefendantsaysP1andP2didnotcommittheoffenceheorderedbutamoreseriousoffence.Yourtask
istodecidewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatthedefendantcommittedoneoftheoffencescharged
asalternativesintheindictment.Therearethreecountsintheindictment,count1,causinggrievousbodily
harmwithintenttodogrievousbodilyharm;count2,infictinggrievousbodilyharm;andcount3,assault
occasioningactualbodilyharm.[Explain]
Youwillneedtoconsider(1)thescopeoftheagreementreachedbetweenthedefendant,P1andP2,(2)
thedefendantsawarenessofthepossibleconsequencesofthatagreement,and(3)thedefendantsstateof
mindwhenhegavehisdirections.
YoumustfrstdecidewhetheryouaresurethedefendanthiredP1andP2todoreallyseriousbodilyharm
toV.Ifyouaresurehedid,thenitdoesnotmatterwhetherthedefendantrealisedtheywouldusebaseball
batstoachieveit.Heisguiltyoftheoffencechargedincount1,causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent,
becausewhatheordered,andthereforeintended,wasachievedbyP1andP2asordered.Yourverdictwould
beguiltyofcount1andyouneedgonofurther.
IfyouarenotsurethatthedefendantorderedP1andP2tocauseVreallyseriousharm,thenyoumust
considerwhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatwhatwasdonebyP1andP2waswithinthescopeofthe
agreementthedefendantmadewiththem.Theprosecutionmustprovethatthedefendantrealisedthatin
carryingouthisordersP1andP2mightusebaseballbatsorsimilarweapons.Indecidingwhatwasinthe
defendantsmindyouareentitledtocomparewhatthedefendantorderedwithwhatP1andP2did.
Letuslookatthefrstquestion:Wastheuseofbaseballbatsanactessentiallydifferentinqualityfromor
essentiallythesameaswhatthedefendantordered?Theprosecutionpointsoutthatthedefendantwas
perfectlypreparedforP1andP2tousetheirfstsandfeetonthecomplainant.Theuseofanotherform
ofbluntinstrumenttosoftenhimupdidnotdepartfromtheessentialqualityofwhatwasagreed.The
defencearguesthatthesewereactionsofacompletelydifferentcharacterfromthoseordered.Youmust
resolvethisissue.Clearly,ifyouthinkP1andP2mayhavegonewellbeyondwhatthedefendantordered,
thelesslikelyitisthatthedefendantrealisedtheymightactinthatway.If,ontheotherhand,youaresure
thatwhatwasorderedandwhattookplacewereessentiallythesame,themorelikelyitis,youmaythink,
thatthedefendantrealisedthatP1andP2mightactastheydidwhentheycarriedouthisorders.
72
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youmustdecidewhetherthedefendantrealisedthat,incarryingouthisorders,P1andP2mightresortto
violencewithweaponssuchasbaseballbats.
Ifyouaresurethedefendantrealisedthatweaponssuchasbaseballbatsmightbeusedtocarryouthis
orders,theviolencedonewaswithinthescopeofthedefendantsorderstoP1andP2.
However,hewouldbeguiltyofcount1onlyifherealisedthatP1andP2wouldormightactwithintentto
causeVreallyseriousbodilyharm.Ifyouaresurehedidyourverdictwouldbeguiltyofcount1.Ifyouare
notsurehedid,yourverdictwouldbenotguiltyofcount1butguiltyofcount2.
If, on the other hand, you are not sure that the defendant realised the possibility that weapons such as
baseballbatsmaybeused,yourverdictwouldbenotguiltyofcount2.
Ifyoufndthedefendantnotguiltyofcount1andcount2itisconcededbythedefencethatyourverdict
uponcount3willbeguilty.ThedefendantacceptsthathehiredP1andP2tocommittheoffenceofassault
causingactualbodilyharm.Thedefendantwouldthereforeberesponsibleforwhatheorderedbutnotfor
consequenceswhichresultedfromviolenceoutsidethescopeofhisdirections.
Ihavepreparedanotewhichexplainsthesequenceinwhichyoushouldconsiderthesequestionsbefore
arrivingatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
Pleaseanswerquestion1andproceedasdirected
Question 1
AreyousureP1andP2causedandintendedtocausereallyseriousbodilyharmtoV?
Admitted.Proceedtoquestion2
Question 2
AreyousurethatthedefendantorderedP1andP2tocausereallyseriousharmtoV?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount1(causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent)andproceed
nofurther
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,gotoquestion3
Question 3
AreyousurethattheuseofbaseballbatswaswithinthescopeofthedirectionsgivenbythedefendanttoP1
andP2?See Note below
Ifyouaresuretheuseofbaseballbatswaswithinthescopeoftheagreement,gotoquestion4
Ifyouarenotsuretheuseofbaseballbatswaswithinthescopeoftheagreement,gotoquestion5
73
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 4
AreyousurethatwhenthedefendanthiredP1andP2herealisedthattheymayattackVintendingtocause
himreallyseriousharm?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount1(causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent)andproceed
nofurther
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,verdictnotguiltycount1butguiltycount2(infictinggrievousbodily
harm)andproceednofurther
Question 5
AreyousurethatthedefendanthiredP1andP2tocauseandintendedthemtocauseVsomephysical
harm?
Admitted.Verdictguiltycount3(assaultoccasioningactualbodilyharm)
Note:
The use of baseball bats was within the scope of the defendants directions to P1 and P2 only if
you are sure that the defendant realised when he gave his directions to P1 and P2 that weapons
such as baseball bats might well be used to carry them out.
(v) Further Offence Committed in the Course of a Joint Enterprise
1. Ifthedefendant(D)isengagedwithanother(P)inajointenterprisetocommitoffenceX,andP,in
thecourseofthejointenterprise,commitsthefurtheroffenceY,DmaybeliablealsoforoffenceY.
Questionswhichariseare(1)whethertheactsdonewerewithinthescopeofthejointenterprise,(2)
whethertheacts,whilewithinthescopeofthejointenterprise,weredonewithanintentionwithin
thecontemplationofthedefendant.
2. Ifthecommonpurposeoftheenterprisewasachieved(i.e.offenceX)itdoesnotmatterthatitwas
achievedbyameanswhichwasoutsidethecontemplationofthedefendant(e.g.wherethepurpose
ofthejointenterprisewastokillavictimbyshootingandoneofthepartiestookoutaknifeand
stabbedthevictimtodeath,allareguiltyofmurder,becausethecommonpurposewasakilling).
124
ThereasonisthatPandDaccomplishedthepurposetheysetouttoachieve.
3. Whereonepartytothejointenterprise(P)actedinamannerwhichexceededthecommonpurpose,
theissueforthejuryiswhetherhisactwasneverthelesswithinthescopeofthejointenterprise,and,
therefore,authorisedbythedefendant(D),ortheactwasforeseenbyDasarealpossibilitywhenhe
embarkeduponthejointenterprise.DisliableforPsactifherealiseditwasarealpossibilitythat,in
furtheranceofthejointenterprise,oneofthepartiestoitwouldactashedid,whetherthedefendant
personallywisheditornot.If,however,Psactswerefundamentallydifferentfromthosedirecteditis
unlikelythattheprosecutionwillprovehisforesightofthoseacts.
125
Footnotes
124
BrownandIsaacv.TheState[2003]UKPC10,para13
125
Rv.Anderson,Rv.Morris[1966]2QB110;Rv.Smith(Wesley)[1963]1WLR1200;Rv.GambleandOthers[1989]NI268(butsee
doubtsexpressedbythemajorityinRahman[2008]UKHL45astothecorrectnessofthedecisioninGambleonitsfacts)
74
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. Whereacrimeofspecifcintentischarged(e.g.murderorcausinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent)
Dsresponsibilitydependsupontheanswertothefollowingquestion:DidDparticipateorcontinue
toparticipateinthejointenterpriserealisingtherewasarealpossibilitythatanotherpartytothejoint
enterprisewouldactashedidwithspecifcintent?
5. Wherethedefendantrealisedthatoneofpartiestothejointenterprisemay,inthecourseofthejoint
enterprise,usealethalweapon,thejurymayreadilydrawtheinferencethathewasalsoawarethathe
mightuseitwithspecifcintent(e.g.(1)whereinthecourseofarobberyPshotthecashier,Dwillbe
guiltyifheknewthatPcarriedaloadedshotgunandofarealpossibilitythatPwoulduseit,ifnecessary,
withintenttokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,evenifPandDhadagreedthatitwouldonlybeused
tothreaten;(2)where,inthecourseofajointventuretodoreallyseriousinjurytoV,Pproducedaknife
andstabbedVtodeath,DwouldbeguiltyofmurderifheknewtherewasarealpossibilitythatPwas
inpossessionofaknife,andmightuseaknifetostabVwithintenttokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,
evenifDhadnointentionthataknifeshouldbeproducedorused).
126
6. IfthejuryissurethattheactcommittedbyPwaswithinthescopeofthejointenterprise,butnotsure
thatthedefendantrealisedthattheactmightbeaccompaniedbythespecifcintent,thedefendantis
notguiltyoftheoffenceofspecifcintentcharged,butmaybeguiltyofalesseralternativeoffence(e.g.
infictinggrievousbodilyharmormanslaughter),becausethedefendantremainsliableforactswhich
werewithinthescopeofthejointenterprise.
127
7. Iftheactwas,intheviewofthejury,fundamentallydifferentfromthosecontemplatedbythedefendant,
sothatthedefendantwasunawareofthepossibilitythatPmayactashedid,itwasoutsidethescope
ofthejointenterpriseandthedefendantwillnotberesponsiblefortheconsequencesofit(e.g.where
P,D1andD2attackV1andV2withstickswithintenttocausereallyseriousharm,andPunexpectedly
producesaknifeandkillsV1withintenttocausereallyseriousharm,D1andD2maynotbeguiltyof
murderormanslaughter,dependingonthejurysviewwhetherstabbingwasafundamentallydifferent
act,eventhougheachofthemsetoutwiththeintentrequiredformurder).
128
8. Where,however,thedefendantcontinuedtoparticipateinthejointventureafterherealisedthatanother
partytothejointenterprisewouldormightactashedidwiththerequisiteintent,heisresponsiblefor
theoutcome(e.g.ifduringafghtPunexpectedlyproducedaknifeandthreatenedtokillVwithitand
D,awareofthethreat,continuedhisassaultonV,DwouldbeguiltyofmurderifPcarriedouthisthreat
withintenttokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,evenifDpersonallydidnothavetheintentrequiredfor
murder).
129
9. Adefendantmayexceptionallyescapetheconsequencesofthejointenterpriseifhewithdrewfromit
onceherealisedtheriskofanunintendedoutcomethroughtheactionsofP.
130
Hiswithdrawalmustbe
unequivocalandeffective.
131
Footnotes
126
Rv.Rahman[2008]3WLR264;[2008]UKHL45;Rv.Powell,Rv.English[1999]1AC1
127
Stewart[1995]3AllER159;Gilmour[2000]2CrAppR407;[2000]NICA10
128
See,however,thespeechofLordHuttoninEnglish[1997]3WLR959atpage981;LordBrowninRahman[2008]3WLR264;
[2008]UKHL45at68;seealsoRv.YemohandOthers[2009]EWCACrim930fortheapplicationofthetesttomanslaughter.
129
Rv.Rahman[2008]3WLR264;[2008]UKHL45
130
Mitchell[1990]CrimLR496
131
Bryce[2004]2CrAppR35;Robinson[2000]ArchboldNews2(sameprincipleapplieswhethertheoffencewasspontaneousor
planned);OFlaherty[2004]2CrAppR315;Gallant[2008]EWCACrim1111;BecerraandCooper[1976]62CrAppR212
7S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration prosecution case of joint enterprise (common purpose) to kill V D admits common
purpose to cause really serious harm P stabs and kills V whether the act of P was committed within
the scope of the common purpose joined by D or was a fundamentally different act whether D knew
of a real possibility that P would use a knife with the intent required for murder
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendant,withothers,setouttokillthedeceased.Thatthiswastheirjoint
intentioncanbeinferredfromtheiractionsobservedbythewitnesses.Theywereseenadvancingtowards
theirvictim,V,carryinganassortmentofweapons,includingsticks,abaseballbatandatleastoneknife,
perhapstwo.MembersofthegroupwerechantingwordstotheeffectthatVwasadeadman.Duringthe
attackwhichfollowed,oneofthemthrustaknifeintoVschestcausingawoundfromwhichhediedwithin
minutes.Theevidencedoesnotestablishwhoinfictedthewoundbuttheprosecutionacceptsitwasnotthis
defendant.ItiscommongroundthatwhoeverinfictedthatknifewoundintendedeithertokillVortocause
himreallyseriousbodilyinjury,andwasthereforeguiltyofmurder.
ThedefendantsaysthathisintentionwastoattackVwiththestickhewascarrying.Headmitsthathedid
causeaseriousinjurytoVsheadwithintenttocausereallyseriousharm.However,hesayshewasunaware
thatanyonewascarryingaknife,hadnointentionthatanyoneshoulduseaknifeanddidnotappreciate
thatanyonemightbeintendingtouseaknife.No-onewaschantingdeaththreatstowardsVasfarashe
wasawareandhewouldnothavejoinedacommonpurposetokill.
ThedefendantthereforeadmitshejoinedanunlawfulcriminalenterprisetoattackVbutdeniesthatheis
responsibleforVsdeath.
The frst issue between the prosecution and the defence for you to resolve is whether the defendant
participatedinanattackonthedeceasedintendingthatVshouldbekilled.Ifthedefendantparticipated
inajointattackwhosecommonpurposewastokillheisguiltyofmurder,whetherornothewastheman
whodeliveredthefatalwound,andwhetherornothethoughtaknifemightbeused.Yourverdictwouldbe
guiltyofmurderandyouneedproceednofurther.
Ifyouarenotsurethatthedefendantsharedacommonpurposetokill,thenyoumustnextconsiderwhether
woundingwithaknifewas,nevertheless,withinthescopeofthecriminalenterpriseinwhichhetookpart.
Theuseoftheknifewaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterpriseinwhichthedefendantparticipatedifthe
defendantrealisedwhenhejoinedinthattherewasarealpossibilitythataknifewouldbeusedbyoneof
theotherstowoundV.
OnlyifyouaresurethattheactofwoundingVwaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterpriseinwhichthe
defendantparticipatedcouldyoufndthedefendantguiltyofcount1(murder)orcount2(manslaughter).
Thedefendantisguiltyofmurderifwoundingwithaknifewaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterprisehe
joinedandthedefendantrealisedtherewasarealpossibilitythatVwouldbestabbedbyoneofthegroup
withintenttocausereallyseriousharmordeath.Ifyouaresurethatwoundingwaswithinthescopeofthe
enterprise,butyouarenotsurethedefendantrealisedoneofthegroupwouldormightactwithintentto
causereallyseriousharmordeath,thedefendantisnotguiltyofmurderbutguiltyofmanslaughter.
Ifyouarenotsurethatwoundingwithaknifewaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterprisethedefendant
joinedheisnotguiltyofmurderandnotguiltyofmanslaughter.Inthateventyouwouldturntocount3.
7o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Count3encompassesthedefendantsadmissionthatbyhisownacthecausedaseriousinjurywithintent
todoVreallyseriousbodilyharm.
Ihavepreparedanotewhichexplainsthesequenceinwhichyoushouldconsiderthesequestionsbefore
arrivingatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
Pleaseanswerquestion1frstandproceedasdirected
Question 1
DidthedefendanttakepartintheattackonVsharingacommonpurposetokillhim?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount1(murder)andproceednofurther
Ifyouarenotsure,gotoquestion2
Question 2
WastheuseofaknifetowoundVwithinthescopeofthecriminalenterprisejoinedbythedefendant?See
Note below
IfyouaresuretheuseoftheknifewaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterprisejoinedbyD,goto
question3
IfyouarenotsuretheuseoftheknifewaswithinthescopeofthecriminalenterprisejoinedbyD,go
toquestion4
Question 3
DidthedefendantrealisewhenhetookpartintheattackonVthattherewasarealpossibilityoneofthe
otherattackerswouldstabVwithintenttokillortocausereallyseriousinjury?
Ifyouaresurehedidrealiseit,verdictguiltyofcount1(murder)andproceednofurther
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,verdictnotguiltycount1(murder)butguiltycount2(manslaughter)
Question 4
DidthedefendantcausereallyseriousinjurytoVwithastickintendingtocausehimreallyseriousinjury?
Thedefendantadmitscausingreallyseriousinjurywithastickintendingtocausereallyseriousinjury.
Ifyouhavefoundthedefendantnotguiltyofcount1(murder)andnotguiltycount2(manslaughter)
yourverdictwillbeguiltycount3(causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent).
Note:
The act of stabbing was within the scope of the criminal enterprise joined by the defendant
only if you are sure that the defendant realised when he joined in, or continued to join in, that
one of the other participants might well use a knife to stab V.
77
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sources
FootnotesandArchbold18-7/32;BlackstoneA5.1/15;Smith&Hogan12ed.Chapter8
Astowhetheritisnecessarytodirectthejurybothastoidentifcationofacommonpurposetokillandthe
foresightofanothersactandintention,seeRahman[2008]3WLR264atpara63,perLordBrown.(Note,
however,thatifthecommonpurposetokillwasachievedtheprosecutiondoesnothavetoproveforesight
ofmeans)
Note
TheSeriousCrimeAct2007createsnewstatutoryoffencesofencouragingorassistingcrime.It
abolishedandreplacedthecommonlawoffenceofincitement.Sections44-67cameintoforceon1
October2008.Theprosecutiondoesnothavetoprovethattheoffenceencouragedorassistedwas
committed.Wheretheallegationisthatthedefendantwascomplicitinacrimecommitteditislikely
thattheprosecutionwillcontinuetochargethefulloffence-SeeArchbold33-92/118;Blackstone
A6.3/32.
78
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(9)Causation
Introduction
1. Resultoffencessometimescreateproblemsofcausationtoberesolvedbythejury.Thejudgemay
needtogivecarefulconsiderationtothequestions(1)whattheprosecutionneedstoprove,(2)whether
itisnecessarytoprovidethejurywithanexplanationofcausationand,ifso,(3)howtoexplainthe
conceptofcausationinthecontextofthefactsofthecase.Aslongagoas1956LordParkerCJsaid:
132
Thereareanumberofcasesinthelawofcontractandtortonthesemattersofcausation,anditisalways
diffculttofndaformofwordswhendirectingajuryor,ashere,acourtwhichwillconveyinsimple
languagetheprincipleofcausation.
2. Initssimplestformthetestforcausationiswhetherbutforthedefendantsacttheresultwouldhave
happenedbutsuchatestmightnotpermitconcurrentcausesandmight,inappropriately,imposeliability
foranunforeseeablechangetoconsequences.
General Rule
3. Theremaybemorethanonecause.Theprosecutionmustusuallyestablishthatthedefendantsact
wasasubstantialcauseoftheresult,bywhichismeantamorethanminimalcause.
133
In2002aLaw
Commissionworkingparty,makingproposalsforcodifyingtheconceptofcausationinthecriminallaw,
settledonthedescriptionmadeasubstantialandoperativecontributiontowhich,itissuggested,isan
elegantandaccuratesynonymforcaused.
4. Thefactthattheresultwasunusualorunexpectedinconsequenceofsomeunanticipateddecisionofthe
victimwillnotnecessarilyassistthedefendant.InBlaue
134
,forexample,thevictimofawoundingrefused
abloodtransfusionwhichwouldhavesavedherlife.LawtonLJsaid:
Ithaslongbeenthepolicyofthelawthatthosewhouseviolenceonotherpeoplemusttaketheirvictims
astheyfndthem.Thisinourjudgmentmeansthewholeman,notjustthephysicalman.Itdoesnotlie
inthemouthoftheassailanttosaythathisvictimsreligiousbeliefswhichinhibitedhimfromaccepting
certainkindsoftreatmentwereunreasonable.Thequestionfordecisioniswhatcausedherdeath.The
answeristhestabwound.Thefactthatthevictimrefusedtostopthisendcomingaboutdidnotbreak
thecausalconnectionbetweentheactanddeath.
135
Unlawful Act Manslaughter and Foreseeable Harm
5. Incasesofunlawfulactmanslaughtertheco-existenceoftheunlawfulactandthedeathofthevictim
willnotbeenoughunlesssomeharmwasaforeseeableriskonthefactsastheywereknowntothe
defendant.InChurch
136
thedefendantinfictedgrievousinjuries.Hisevidencewasthatinpanicand
believinghisvictimtobestillalive,hethrewherbodyintoariver.AsEdmundDavisJexplained:
Footnotes
132
Smith[1956]2QB35(CourtMartialAppealCourt)atpage43
133
Hennigan[1971]3AllER133
134
[1975]1WLR1411
135
Comparethefightcasesbelow
136
[1966]1QB59
7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
an unlawful act causing death of another cannot, simply because it is an unlawful act, render a
manslaughterverdictinevitable.Forsuchaverdictinexorablytofollow,theunlawfulactmustbesuchas
allsoberandreasonablepeoplewouldinevitablyrecognisemustsubjecttheotherpersonto,atleast,the
riskofsomeharmresultingtherefrom,albeitnotseriousharm.
Thedefendantwasconvictedofmanslaughter.Thecourtheldthatalthoughthejuryhadbeen
misdirectedthatthedefendantsbeliefthathisvictimwasalivewasirrelevant,aconvictionforatleast
manslaughterhadbeeninevitablebecauseeither(1)thevictimwasdeadwhenshewasthrownintothe
riverandtheinjuriestheaccusedhadalreadyinfictedmadeasignifcantcontributiontodeathor(2)his
victimwasaliveandhisactofthrowingherintotheriverwasanunlawfulanddangerousactwhichany
reasonablepersonwouldhaverealisedwouldrisksomeharm.
6. TheCourtofAppealmadeplaininDawson
137
andCarey
138
thatitisnottheforeseeabilityoftheriskofany
harmwhichwillbesuffcienttosatisfythetestinacaseofmanslaughter.InDawsonagarageattendant
aged60wasthevictimofanattemptedrobbery.Heundoubtedlysufferedanemotionalreactionbut
wassubjectedtonoviolence.Hediedfromaheartattackcausedbytheeffectofstressuponanalready
severelydiseasedheartfromwhichhewasinconstantdangerofsuccumbing.Thebystanderwould
havehadnoreasontosuspectthataheartattackmightbetheresultofthestressthevictimsuffered.In
Careythedeceasedwassubjectedtodirectphysicalassaultduringanaffraybut,havingrunawayfrom
thescene,
139
sufferedadysrhythmiaofthehearttowhichshewas,unknowntoanyone,susceptible,
fromwhichshecollapsedanddied.Inbothcasesthecourtheldthatthedeathwasnotcaused
bytheunlawfulact.Whethertheactwasobjectivelydangerouswastobejudgedaccordingtothe
circumstancesastheywereknowntothedefendant.Accordingly,unlesstherewerecircumstanceswhich
wouldhavegiventhebystanderforesightthatthedefendantsunlawfulactmightcauserelevantharm,
deathwillnothavebeencausedbyanunlawfulanddangerousact.InWatson
140
,ontheotherhand,
thevictimofaburglarycouldbeseentobeafrail87yearoldman.LordLaneCJsaid:
141
Thejudgeclearlytooktheviewthatthejurywereentitledtoascribetothebystandertheknowledge
whichtheappellantgainedduringthewholeofhisstayinthehouseandsodirectedthem.Wasthisa
misdirection?Inourjudgmentitwasnot.Theunlawfulactinthepresentcircumstancescomprisedthe
wholeoftheburglariousintrusionanddidnotcometoanendupontheappellantsfootcrossingthe
thresholdorwindowsill.Thatbeingso,theappellant(andthereforethebystander)duringthecourseof
theunlawfulact,musthavebecomeawareofMr.Moylersfrailtyandapproximateage,andthejudges
directions were accordingly correct. We are supported in this view by the fact that no one at the trial
seemstohavethoughtotherwise.
Footnotes
137
[1985]81CrAppR150
138
[2006]EWCACrim604
139
Note:theprosecutionacceptedthatthevictimwasnotescapingfromthethreatoffurtherviolence
140
[1989]1WLR684
141
Atpage686-687
80
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
142
InPagett[1983]76CrAppR279atpage288RobertGoffLJsaid:Incasesofhomicide...Evenwhereitisnecessarytodirectthe
jurysmindstothequestionofcausation,itisusuallyenoughtodirectthemsimplythatinlawtheaccusedsactneednotbethe
solecause,oreventhemaincause,ofthevictimsdeath,itbeingenoughthathisactcontributedsignifcantlytothatresult.Itis
righttoobserve...thateventhissimpledirectionisadirectionoflawrelatingtocausation,onthebasisofwhichthejuryarebound
toactinconcludingwhethertheprosecutionhasestablished,asamatteroffact,thattheaccusedsactdidinthissensecause
thevictimsdeath.Occasionally,however,aspecifcissueofcausationmayarise.Onesuchcaseiswhere,althoughanactofthe
accusedconstitutesacausasinequanonof(ornecessaryconditionfor)thedeathofthevictim,neverthelesstheinterventionofa
thirdpersonmayberegardedasthesolecauseofthevictimsdeath,therebyrelievingtheaccusedofcriminalresponsibility.Such
intervention...hasoftenbeendescribedbylawyersasanovusactusinterveniens.Weareawarethatthistime-honouredLatinterm
hasbeenthesubjectofcriticism.WearealsoawarethatattemptshavebeenmadetotranslateitintoEnglish;thoughnosimple
translationhasprovedsatisfactory,reallybecausetheLatintermhasbecomeatermofartwhichconveystolawyersthecrucial
featurethattherehasnotmerelybeenaninterveningactofanotherperson,but that that act was so independent of the act of
the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of the victims death, to the exclusion of the act of the accused.
143
C.f.Smith&Hogan12ed.page78
144
[1996]1WLR104
145
Atpage115
Novus Actus Interveniens and Remoteness
7. Mostproblemsofcausationconcerntheapplicationoftheprinciplenovusactusinterveniens,ornewand
interveningact.TheCourtofAppealhas,onmorethanoneoccasion,advisedagainstenteringintoan
expositionofthelawconcerninganinterveningactwhenitisplainthattherewasmorethanonecause
andtheissueiswhetherthedefendantmadeamorethanminimalcontributiontotheresult.
142
8. SubjecttotheexistenceofanEmpressCarCoduty(astowhichseebelow),thedefendantwillberelieved
ofliabilityfortheresultiftheinterveningactoreventbecomesthedominatingoperativecause,such
as:
143

(1)Anextraordinarynaturaleventoronewhichisnotreasonablyforeseeable(e.g.earthquake);
(2)Athirdpartysfree,deliberateandinformedact(c.f.GambleandLatifbelow);
(3)Athirdpartysactwhichisnotreasonablyforeseeable(c.f.Pagett,Gandthemedicalintervention
casesbelow);
(4)Thevictimsfree,deliberateandinformedact(Kennedy(No2)below,butcompareBlaueabove
wherethewoundremainedtheoperativecause);
(5)Thevictimrespondedtothedefendantsactinawaywhichwasnotreasonablyforeseeable(c.f.G
andLewisbelow).
9. InLatif
144
thedefendantswereallegeddrugsimporters.CustomsoffcersseizedinPakistanheroin
intendedforthedefendantsintheUK.TheoffcersconveyedthedrugtoUKwherethedefendantstook
delivery.Thedefendantwasnotguiltyoftheimportation.LordSteynsaid:
145
Theproblem,asSirJohnSmithpointedoutinthenoteintheCriminalLawReview,isoneofcausation.
Review,isoneofcausation.Thegeneralprincipleisthatthefree,deliberateandinformedinterventionof
asecondperson,whointendstoexploitthesituationcreatedbythefrst,butisnotactinginconcertwith
himisheldtorelievethefrstactorofcriminalresponsibility:seeHartandHonore,Causationin(1995),
pp.1315.Forexample,ifathiefhadstolentheheroinafterShahzaddeliveredittoHoni,andtheLaw,2nd
81
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ed.(1985),pp.326etseq.;BlackstonesCriminalPracticeimporteditintotheUnitedKingdom,thechain
ofcausationwouldplainlyhavebeenbroken.Thegeneralprinciplemustalsobeapplicabletotherole
ofthecustomsoffcersinthiscase.Theyactedinfullknowledgeofthecontentofthepackages.They
did not act in concert with Shahzad. They acted deliberately for their own purposes whatever those
mighthavebeen.Inmyviewconsistencyandlegalprincipledonotpermitustocreateanexceptionto
thegeneralprincipleofcausationtotakecareoftheparticularproblemthrownupbythiscase.Inmy
viewtheprosecutionsargumentelidestherealproblemofcausationandprovidesnowayofsolvingit.
Thedefendantsdidnot,however,escapeconvictionbecausetheywerechargedundersection170(2)
CustomsandExciseManagementAct1979bywhichthedefendantisguiltywhenheevadesorattempts
toevadetheduty.Therewasnodoubtthattheyhadattemptedtoevadetheduty.
146
Acts of Self Preservation Causing Injury or Death
10. InPagett
147
thedefendantadvancedtowardsarmedpoliceoffcersinthedarknessofastairwellusinghis
girlfriend,whomhehadtakenhostage,asashield.Hefredashotfromashotgunwhichproducedthe
instinctiveandself-defensiveresponseofshotsfromthepoliceoffcers.Thegirlfriendwaskilledbyshots
fredbytheoffcers.RobertGoffLJ,recognisingtheanalogywiththeescapecases,said:
Therecan,weconsider,benodoubtthatareasonableactperformedforthepurposeofself-preservation,
beingofcourseitselfanactcausedbytheaccusedsownact,doesnotoperateasanovusactusinterveniens.
Ifauthorityisneededforthisalmostself-evidentproposition,itistobefoundinsuchcasesasPitts(1842)
C.&M.284,andCurley(1909)2Cr.App.R.96.Inboththesecases,theactperformedforthepurpose
ofself-preservationconsistedofanactbythevictiminattemptingtoescapefromtheviolenceofthe
accused,whichinfactresultedinthevictimsdeath.Ineachcaseitwasheldasamatteroflawthat,ifthe
victimactedinareasonableattempttoescapetheviolenceoftheaccused,thedeathofthevictimwas
causedbytheactoftheaccused.Nowoneformofself-preservationisself-defence;forpresentpurposes,
wecanseenodistinctioninprinciplebetweenanattempttoescapetheconsequencesoftheaccuseds
act,andaresponsewhichtakestheformofself-defence.Furthermore,inourjudgment,ifareasonable
actofself-defenceagainsttheactoftheaccusedcausesthedeathofathirdparty,wecanseenoreason
inprinciplewhytheactofself-defence,beinganinvoluntaryactcausedbytheactoftheaccused,should
relieve the accused from criminal responsibility for the death of the third party. Of course, it does not
necessarilyfollowthattheaccusedwillbeguiltyofthemurder,orevenofthemanslaughter,ofthethird
party;thoughinthemajorityofcasesheislikelytobeguiltyatleastofmanslaughter.Whetherheisguilty
of murder or manslaughter will depend upon the question whether all the ingredients of the relevant
offencehavebeenproved;inparticular,onachargeofmurder,itwillbenecessarythattheaccusedhad
thenecessaryintent...
Thus,thedefendantsunlawfulanddangerousactsof(1)theassaultuponhisgirlfriendbyforcingherto
actasashieldand(2)fringashotatthepoliceoffcerscreatedaforeseeableriskofrelevantharmand
wereasignifcantcauseofthegirlfriendsdeath.
Footnotes
146
C.f.Jakeman[1983]76CrAppR223inwhichthedefendanthadbookedherluggagecontaining21kiloscannabisfromAccrato
LondonviaRome.WhenherconnectingfightfromRometoLondonwascancelled,sheandherluggagewerefowntoParis.She
failedtoclaimherluggageandtravelledontoLondonwithoutit.ThecarriersforwardedtheluggagetoLondon.Thedefendant
waschargedundersection3(2)MisuseofDrugsAct1971withevasionoftheprohibitiononimportationofacontrolleddrug.
TheCourtofAppealheldthattheactionofthecarrierwasnotanewactbuttheperformanceofheractbyaninnocentagent.
147
[1983]76CrAppR279
82
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
11. Thetrialjudgehaddirectedthejurythatiftheyfoundthesefactsprovedthedefendantwouldinlaw
havecausedthedeath.Thejudgeshouldhavelefttheissuetothejury.RobertGoffLJcontinued:
Theprincipleswhichwehavestatedareprinciplesoflaw.Thisisplainfrom,forexample,thecaseof
Pitts (1842) C. & M. 284 , to which we have already referred. It follows that where, in any particular
case,thereisanissueconcernedwithwhatwehaveforconveniencecallednovusactusinterveniens,itwill
beappropriateforthejudgetodirectthejuryinaccordancewiththeseprinciples.Itdoesnothowever
followthatitisaccuratetostatebroadlythatcausationisaquestionoflaw.Onthecontrary,generally
speakingcausationisaquestionoffactforthejury.Thusin,forexample,Towers(1874)12CoxC.C.530,
theaccusedstruckawoman;shescreamedloudly,andachildwhomshewasthennursingturnedblack
intheface,andfromthatdayuntilitdiedsufferedfromconvulsions.Thequestionwhetherthedeathof
thechildwascausedbytheactoftheaccusedwasleftbythejudgetothejurytodecideasaquestionof
fact.
Nevertheless,theverdictwasundisturbedbecausethejudgesdirectionshadbeensomewhatmore
generousthantheyneedhavebeen.
12. Ifthedefendantsunlawfulactgeneratesinthevictimareactionwhichresultsinthevictimsinjuryor
deaththequestionforthejurywillbewhetherthevictimsreactionwasaforeseeableconsequenceofthe
defendantsunlawfulact.InWilliams
148
Stuart-SmithLJexplained:

Itisplainthatinfatalcasestherearetworequirements.Thefrst,asinnon-fatalcases,relatestothe
deceasedsconductwhichwouldbesomethingthatareasonableandresponsiblemanintheassailants
shoes would have foreseen. The second, which applies only in fatal cases, relates to the quality of the
unlawfulactwhichmustbesuchthatallsoberandreasonablepeoplewouldinevitablyrecognisemust
subjecttheotherpersontosomeharmresultingtherefrom,albeitnotseriousharm.Itshouldbenoted
thattheheadnoteisinaccurateandtendstoconfusethesetwolimbs.
Theharmmustbephysicalharm.Wheretheunlawfulactisabattery,thereisnodiffcultywiththesecond
ingredient. Where, however, the unlawful act is merely a threat unaccompanied and not preceded by
anyactualviolence,thepositionmaybemorediffcult.Inthecaseofalife-threateningassault,suchas
pointingagunorknifeatthevictim,allsoberandreasonablepeoplemaywellanticipatesomephysical
injurythroughshocktothevictim,asforexampleinReg.v.Dawson(1985)81Cr.App.R.150wherethe
victimdiedofaheartattackfollowingarobberyinwhichtwooftheappellantshadbeenmasked,armed
withareplicagunandpickaxehandles.Butthenatureofthethreatisofimportanceinconsideringboth
theforeseeabilityofharmtothevictimfromthethreatandthequestionwhetherthedeceasedsconduct
wasproportionatetothethreat;thatistosaythatitwaswithintheambitofreasonablenessandnotso
daftastomakeithisownvoluntaryactwhichamountedtoanovusactusinterveniensandconsequently
brokethechainofcausation.Itshouldofcoursebeborneinmindthatavictimmayintheagonyofthe
momentdothewrongthing.
Footnotes
148
[1992]1WLR380
83
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
13. InLewis
149
thedeceasedwaschasedbytheappellantintothepathofanoncomingcarandsufferedfatal
injuries.Theappellantwasconvictedofmanslaughter.Upontheissueofcausationthejudgeposedto
thejurythequestionwhethertheprosecutionhadproved,sothatweresure,that(1)bychasingthe
deceasedtheappellanthadcommittedanunlawfulact,(2)thedeceasedsfightwastheresultofthe
unlawfulact,and(3)thedeceasedsfightintotheroadwasatleastoneoftheresponseswhichmight
havebeenexpectedofthedeceasedinthecircumstances.Thedirectionswereupheld.Theycorrectly
identifedinnon-legaltermstheneedfortheprosecutiontoproveboththattheappellantsunlawful
actwastheoperativecauseofthefatalcollisionandthattheunlawfulactcreatedaforeseeableriskof
relevantharminthecircumstancesknowntoappellantatthetime,andwasthereforedangerous.
Death by Dangerous Driving
14. Inthetrialofoffencesofcausingdeathbydangerousdrivingthebaddrivingofthedefendantandof
othersmaybeconcurrentcausesofdeath.InHennigan
150
thedefendantovertookvehiclesatspeed.He
regainedhiscorrectsideoftheroadbutinfrontofhimtohisnearsidethedeceasedemergedfroma
sideturningtoturnleft.Thedefendantwasunabletoavoidacollisionwhichkilledthedeceasedandhis
passenger.LordParkerCJmadeclearthatthejurywasnotconcernedwithapportionment.Itwasenough
ifthedangerousdrivingofthedefendantwasarealcauseofthedeathwhichwasmorethanminimal.
15. InSkelton
151
thedriverofalorryknewoftheunsafeconditionofitsbrakingsystem.Thebrakesseizedand
thelorrycametorestinthenearsidelane.Severalfollowingvehiclesmanagedtoavoidtheobstruction
butafterabout12minutesalorrycollidedwiththeobstructionandthedriverwaskilled.Thequestion
forthejurywaswhetherthedeceasedsownnegligencewasanewandinterveningcause.SedleyJ,ashe
thenwas,deliveringthejudgmentofthecourt,said:

thedangerousdriving[ofthestationaryvehicle]musthaveplayedapart,notsimplyincreatingthe
occasionofthefatalaccidentbutinbringingitabout.
16. InBarnes
152
thedefendantcarriedanunsafeloadonhistruck.Asofaworkedloose,becamedetachedand
fellintothecarriageway.Thetruckstoppedashortdistancefurtheralongthecarriageway.Afollowing
motorcyclistmanagedtoavoidthesofabutcollidedwiththerearofthetruck.HallettLJsaid:
13.Thejurywasentitledtofndthattheappellantputotherroadusersatriskbydrivingdangerously.
Hedrovewithaloadwhichwasinsecure.Hadhenotdonesothesofawouldnothavefallenoff,andMr
Wildmanwouldnothavebeenforcedtodriveroundit.Hewouldnothavebeendistractedbyitorturned
towarnotherscomingbehindhim.Theappellantscarwouldnothavebeenstoppedinthecarriageway
andMrWildmanwouldnothavedrivenintothebackofit.Whatevercriticisms[counsel]couldproperly
makeofMrWildmansdriving,inourjudgmentallthosecircumstancesaresuchthatitwasopentothe
jurytofndthathisdangerousdrivingplayedmorethanaminimalroleinbringingabouttheaccidentand
thedeath.
Footnotes
149
[2010]EWCA151
150
[1971]3AllER133
151
[1995]CrimLR635
152
[2008]EWCACrim2726;[2009]RTR21
84
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thetrialjudgehaddirectedthejuryasfollows:
Nowthewordstherebycausedthedeath.Youhavetobesurethedangerousdrivingwasacauseof
death,nottheonlycauseofdeathorthemaincauseofdeath,butacauseofdeathwhichwasmore
thanjusttrivial.Thismeansyoumustbesurethatnotonlythedefendantsdangerousdrivingcreated
the circumstances of the fatal collision but it was an actual cause in bringing about the death of Mr
Wildman.Andthedefencesayhere,youmightbesatisfedthedefendanthadcreatedthecircumstances
ofthecollisionbutandtheysay,andtheyrecogniseitisanunattractiveargument,andtheysayitis
nonethelessright,theonlycauseofdeathwasMrWildmanfailingtokeepaproperlookout.Andifthat
isso,ormaybeso,Idirectyoutoacquit.
TheCourtheldthatwhileinsomecircumstancesjudgesmighthavetogivethejuryfurtherassistance
uponthedifferencebetweenbringingabouttheconditionsinwhichdeathoccurredandcausingthe
death,thedirectiongivenbythejudgewassuffcientonthefactsinBarnes.
17. TheCourtofAppealgaveconsiderationinG
153
tothequestionhowthejurycouldbeassistedwiththe
conceptofforeseeabilitywhereitwasthedefencecasethatanewactintervened.Thedefendanthad
drivenintocollisionwithanothervehiclewhich,whenitcametorest,createdanobstruction.Some
vehiclesavoidedtheobstruction,onedidnotandafatalaccidentoccurred.TheCourtconsideredhow
thetrialjudgemightbestexplaintothejurythatthedefendantcausedthesecondandfatalcollisionifit
wasaforeseeableconsequenceofhisdriving.HooperLJconcluded:
We are of the view that the words reasonably foreseeable, whilst apt to describe for a lawyer the
appropriatetest,mayneedtoberewordedtoeasethetaskofajury.Wesuggestthatajurycouldbetold
incircumstanceslikethepresentwheretheimmediatecauseofdeathisasecondcollision,thatifthey
weresurethatthedefendantdrovedangerously,andweresurethathisdangerousdrivingwasmorethan
aslightortrifinglinktothedeath(s),then:
thedefendantwillhavecausedthedeath(s)onlyifyouaresurethatitcouldsensiblyhavebeenanticipated
thatafatalcollisionmightoccurinthecircumstancesinwhichthesecondcollisiondidoccur.
Thejudgeshouldidentifytherelevantcircumstancesandremindthejuryoftheprosecutionanddefence
cases.Ifitisthoughtnecessaryitcouldbemadecleartothejurythattheyarenotconcernedwithwhat
thedefendantforesaw.
Medical Intervention
18. Medicalinterventionisaforeseeableconsequenceofinjurycausedbythedefendantsviolentunlawful
act;soalsoisthepossibilityofineffectiveornegligentmedicaltreatment.InSmith
154
thedeceasedwas
injuredbyabayonetduringafght.Whilebeingtakentothemedicalreceptionstationthedeceasedwas
droppedtwice.Onarrivalhisconditionwasmisdiagnosedandhewasnotgivenabloodtransfusion.
Nevertheless,theCourtsMartialAppealCourt(LordParkerCJ)heldthatthedeceasedsdeathwascaused
byhisstabwounds.
Footnotes
153
[2009]EWCACrim2666[reportembargoedpendingare-trial]
154
[1959]2QB35
8S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
19. ThefactsofJordan
155
wereinthisregardexceptional.Thevictimofastabbingwastakentohospitalwhere
hedied.Thedefendantwasconvictedofmurder.However,theCourtofCriminalAppealadmittedfresh
medicalevidencewhichcametolightafterthetrial.HallettJ,givingthejudgmentofthecourtsaid:
Thereweretwothingsotherthanthewoundwhichwerestatedbythesetwomedicalwitnessestohave
broughtaboutdeath.Thestabwoundhadpenetratedtheintestineintwoplaces,butitwasmainlyhealed
atthetimeofdeath.Withaviewtopreventinginfectionitwasthoughtrighttoadministeranantibiotic,
terramycin.
Itwasagreedbythetwoadditionalwitnessesthatthatwasthepropercoursetotake,andaproperdose
wasadministered.Somepeople,however,areintoleranttoterramycin,andBeaumontwasoneofthose
people.Aftertheinitialdoseshedevelopeddiarrhoea,whichwasonlyproperlyattributable,intheopinion
ofthosedoctors,tothefactthatthepatientwasintoleranttoterramycin.Thereupontheadministration
ofterramycinwasstopped,butunfortunatelytheverynextdaytheresumptionofsuchadministration
wasorderedbyanotherdoctoranditwasrecommencedthefollowingday.Thetwodoctorsbothtakethe
sameviewaboutit.Dr.Simpsonsaidthattointroduceapoisonoussubstanceaftertheintoleranceofthe
patientwasshownwaspalpablywrong.Mr.Blackburnagreed.
Otherstepsweretakenwhichwerealsoregardedbythedoctorsaswrongnamely,theintravenous
introduction of wholly abnormal quantities of liquid far exceeding the output. As a result the lungs
became waterlogged and pulmonary oedema was discovered. Mr. Blackburn said that he was not
surprisedtoseethatconditionaftertheintroductionofsomuchliquid,andthatpulmonaryoedemaleads
tobronchopneumoniaasaninevitablesequel,anditwasfrombronchopneumoniathatBeaumontdied.
Wearedisposedtoacceptitasthelawthatdeathresultingfromanynormaltreatmentemployedtodeal
withafeloniousinjurymayberegardedascausedbythefeloniousinjury,butwedonotthinkitnecessary
toexaminethecasesindetailortoformulatefortheassistanceofthosewhohavetodealwithsuchmatters
inthefuturethecorrecttestwhichoughttobelaiddownwithregardtowhatisnecessarytobeproved
inordertoestablishcausalconnectionbetweenthedeathandthefeloniousinjury.Itissuffcienttopoint
outherethatthiswasnotnormaltreatment.Notonlyonefeature,buttwoseparateandindependent
features, of treatment were, in the opinion of the doctors, palpably wrong and these produced the
symptomsdiscoveredatthepost-mortemexaminationwhichwerethedirectandimmediatecauseof
death,namely,thepneumoniaresultingfromtheconditionofoedemawhichwasfound.
20. InCheshire
156
thedeceasedhad,afteremergencytreatment,madeasubstantialrecoveryfromtheeffect
ofbulletwoundswhenhedevelopeddiffcultywithhisbreathing.Doctorsfailedtoappreciatethathe
haddevelopedacomplicationofatracheotomycarriedoutasanecessaryemergencyprocedurewhich
restrictedhisbreathingandhedied.BeldamLJsaid:
Inacaseinwhichthejuryhavetoconsiderwhethernegligenceinthetreatmentofinjuriesinfictedby
thedefendantwasthecauseofdeathwethinkitissuffcientforthejudgetotellthejurythattheymustbe
satisfedthattheCrownhaveprovedthattheactsofthedefendantcausedthedeathofthedeceasedadding
thatthedefendantsactsneednotbethesolecauseoreventhemaincauseofdeathitbeingsuffcient
thathisactscontributedsignifcantlytothatresult.Eventhoughnegligenceinthetreatmentofthevictim
wastheimmediatecauseofhisdeath,thejuryshouldnotregarditasexcludingtheresponsibilityofthe
Footnotes
155
[1956]40CrAppR152
156
[1991]1WLR844
8o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
defendantunlessthenegligenttreatmentwassoindependentofhisacts,andinitselfsopotentincausing
death,thattheyregardthecontributionmadebyhisactsasinsignifcant.
Itisnotthefunctionofthejurytoevaluatecompetingcausesortochoosewhichisdominantprovided
theyaresatisfedthatthedefendantsactscanfairlybesaidtohavemadeasignifcantcontributiontothe
victimsdeath.Wethinkthewordsignifcantconveysthenecessarysubstanceofacontributionmade
tothedeathwhichismorethannegligible.
21. InMalcherek
157
theCourtofAppealhadtoconsideranapplicationtoadducefreshmedicalevidence
totheeffectthatdeathhadbeencausednotbythedefendantsactbutthetreatingphysicians
inappropriatedecisiontowithdrawlifesupport.LordLaneCJexplainedthecourtsdecisiontorefusethe
applicationasfollows:
Thereasonisthis.Nothingwhichanyofthetwoorthreemedicalmenwhosestatementsarebefore
uscouldsaywouldalterthefactthatineachcasetheassailantsactionscontinuedtobeanoperating
causeofthedeath.Nothingthedoctorscouldsaywouldprovideanygroundforajurycomingtothe
conclusionthattheassailantineithercasemightnothavecausedthedeath.Thefurthesttowhichtheir
proposedevidencegoes,asalreadystated,istosuggest,frst,thatthecriteriaortheconfrmatorytestsare
notsuffcientlystringentand,secondly,thatinthepresentcasetheywereincertainrespectsinadequately
fulflled or carried out. It is no part of this courts function in the present circumstances to pronounce
uponthismatter,norwasitafunctionofeitherofthejuriesatthesetrials.Whereamedicalpractitioner
adoptingmethodswhicharegenerallyacceptedcomesbonafdeandconscientiouslytotheconclusion
that the patient is for practical purposes dead, and that such vital functions as exist for example,
circulationarebeingmaintainedsolelybymechanicalmeans,andthereforediscontinuestreatment,
thatdoesnotpreventthepersonwhoinfictedtheinitialinjuryfrombeingresponsibleforthevictims
death.Puttingitinanotherway,thediscontinuanceoftreatmentinthosecircumstancesdoesnotbreak
thechainofcausationbetweentheinitialinjuryandthedeath.
Althoughitisunnecessarytogofurtherthanthatforthepurposeofdecidingthepresentpoint,wewish
toaddthisthought.Whateverthestrictlogicofthemattermaybe,itisperhapssomewhatbizarreto
suggest,ascounselhaveimpliedlydone,thatwhereadoctortrieshisconscientiousbesttosavethelife
ofapatientbroughttohospitalinextremis,skilfullyusingsophisticatedmethods,drugsandmachinery
todoso,butfailsinhisattemptandthereforediscontinuestreatment,hecanbesaidtohavecausedthe
deathofthepatient.
Defendant Assisting a Lawful Act Causing Death
22. TheHouseofLords,inKennedy(No2)
158
fnallyresolvedthequestionwhetheradefendantwhoassisted
thevictimtoinjectacontrolleddrugcommittedtheoffenceofmanslaughterwhenthevictimdiedfrom
anoverdose.Whenthevictimbyhisfree,deliberateandinformedactchosetoingestacontrolleddrug
hewascommittingnooffence.Itfollowedthatadefendantwhoassistedhimcouldnotbeguiltyasa
secondaryparty.LordBinghamsaid:
Footnotes
157
[1981]1WLR690
158
[2008]1AC269HL
87
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
14Thecriminallawgenerallyassumestheexistenceoffreewill.Thelawrecognisescertainexceptions,
in the case of the young, those who for any reason are not fully responsible for their actions, and the
vulnerable,anditacknowledgessituationsofduressandnecessity,asalsoofdeceptionandmistake.But,
generallyspeaking,informedadultsofsoundmindaretreatedasautonomousbeingsabletomaketheir
own decisions how they will act, and none of the exceptions is relied on as possibly applicable in this
case.ThusDisnottobetreatedascausingVtoactinacertainwayifVmakesavoluntaryandinformed
decisiontoactinthatwayratherthananother.Therearemanyclassicstatementstothiseffect.Inhis
articleFinisforNovusActus?[1989]CLJ391,392,ProfessorGlanvilleWilliamswrote:
Imaysuggestreasonstoyoufordoingsomething;Imayurgeyoutodoit,tellyouitwillpayyoutodo
it,tellyouitisyourdutytodoit.Myeffortsmayperhapsmakeitverymuchmorelikelythatyouwilldoit.
Buttheydonotcauseyoutodoit,inthesenseinwhichonecausesakettleofwatertoboilbyputtingit
onthestove.Yourvolitionalactisregarded(withinthedoctrineofresponsibility)assettinganewchainof
causationgoing,irrespectiveofwhathashappenedbefore.
InchapterXIIofCausationintheLaw,2nded(1985),p326,Hart&Honorwrote:
Thefree,deliberate,andinformedinterventionofasecondperson,whointendstoexploitthesituation
created by the frst, but is not acting in concert with him, is normally held to relieve the frst actor of
criminalresponsibility.
ThisstatementwascitedbytheHousewithapprovalinRvLatif[1996]1WLR104,115.Theprincipleis
fundamentalandnotcontroversial.
Hecontinued:
17 In his article already cited Professor Glanville Williams pointed out, at p 398, that the doctrine of
secondaryliabilitywasdevelopedpreciselybecauseaninformedvoluntarychoicewasordinarilyregarded
asanovusactusinterveniensbreakingthechainofcausation:
Principalscause,accomplicesencourage(orotherwiseinfuence)orhelp.Iftheinstigatorwereregarded
ascausingtheresulthewouldbeaprincipal,andtheconceptualdivisionbetweenprincipals(or,asIprefer
tocallthem,perpetrators)andaccessorieswouldvanish.Indeed,itwasbecausetheinstigatorwasnot
regardedascausingthecrimethatthenotionofaccessorieshadtobedeveloped.Thisistheirrefragable
argumentforrecognisingthenovusactusprincipleasoneofthebasesofourcriminallaw.Thefnalactis
donebytheperpetrator,andhisguiltpushestheaccessories,conceptuallyspeaking,intothebackground.
Accessorialliabilityis,inthetraditionaltheory,derivativefromthatoftheperpetrator.
18Thisisamatterofsomesignifcancesince,contrarytotheviewoftheCourtofAppealwhendismissing
theappellantsfrstappeal,thedeceasedcommittednooffencewheninjectinghimselfwiththefataldose
ofheroin.ItwassoheldbytheCourtofAppealinRvDias[2002]2CrAppR96,paras2124,andinRv
Rogers[2003]1WLR1374andisnowaccepted.Iftheconductofthedeceasedwasnotcriminalhewas
notaprincipaloffender,anditofcoursefollowsthattheappellantcannotbeliableasasecondaryparty.
Italsofollowsthatthereisnomeaningfullegalsenseinwhichtheappellantcanbesaidtohavebeena
principaljointlywiththedeceased,ortohavebeenactinginconcert.Thefndingthatthedeceasedfreely
andvoluntarilyadministeredtheinjectiontohimself,knowingwhatitwas,isfataltoanycontentionthat
theappellantcausedtheherointobeadministeredtothedeceasedortakenbyhim.
88
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Statutory Context
23. Usually,therewillbeadirectcauseandeffect.However,aleadingmodernauthorityoncausationis
EnvironmentAgencyv.EmpressCarCo.(Abertillery)Ltd
159
inwhichtheHouseofLordswasconsideringthe
meaningofthewordcausesinsection85(1)intheWaterResourcesAct1991.Thesectionread:
Apersoncontravenesthissectionifhecauses.anypoisonous,noxiousorpollutingmatteror
anysolidwastemattertoenteranycontrolledwaters.
EmpressCarCostoreddieselfuelinatankattheiryardadjoiningtheRiverEbbwinAbertillery.
Overnightsomeonemischievouslyopenedthetapwhichcausedthefueltooverfowandpollutethe
river.Thequestionwaswhetherthecompanyhadcausedthefueltoenterthecontrolledwaters.
Notwithstandingtheimmediateanddirectcauseofthepollutionwasthedeliberateactofathirdparty,
theHouseheldthatthecompanyhadcausedthepollution.
24. AlthoughthedecisioninEmpressCarCohassincebeenconfnedtoitsparticularstatutorycontext
(environmentalpollution),LordHoffmansrationaleforthemeaningofthewordcausationreceived
thesubsequentendorsementoftheHouseinKennedy(No2)
160
.LordHoffmanexplainedthatbeforea
decisioncouldbereachedastowhatwasrequiredthecourthadtoexaminethescopeintendedbythe
rule:
161
Before answering questions about causation, it is therefore frst necessary to identify the scope
of the relevant rule. This is not a question of common sense fact; it is a question of law. In Stansbie
v.Tromanthelawimposedadutywhichincludedhavingtotakeprecautionsagainstburglars..What,
therefore,isthenatureofthedutyimposedbysection85(1)?Doesitincluderesponsibilityforactsofthird
partiesornaturaleventsand,ifso,foranysuchactsoronlysomeofthem?Thisisaquestionofstatutory
construction,havingregardtothepolicyoftheAct.Itisimmediatelyclearthattheliabilityimposedby
thesubsectionisstrict:itdoesnotrequiremensreainthesenseofintentionornegligence.Strictliability
isimposedintheinterestsofprotectingcontrolledwatersfrompollution.Theoffenceis,asLordPearson
said in Alphacell Ltd. v. Woodward [1972] A.C. 824, 842, in the nature of a public nuisance. National
RiversAuthorityv.YorkshireWaterServicesLtd.[1995]1A.C.444isastrikingexampleofacaseinwhich,
inthecontextofarulewhichdidnotapplystrictliability,itwouldhavebeensaidthatthedefendants
operationofthesewageplantdidnotcausethepollutionbutmerelyprovidedtheoccasionforpollution
tobecausedbythethirdpartywhodischargedtheiso-octanol,andinAlphacellLtd.v.Woodward[1972]
A.C.824,835,LordWilberforcesaidwithreferencetoImpress(Worcester)Ltd.v.Rees[1971]2AllE.R.357,
whichIshalldiscusslater,that:
itshouldnotberegardedasadecisionthatineverycasetheactofathirdpartynecessarilyinterruptsthe
chainofcausationinitiatedbythepersonwhoownsoroperatestheinstallationorplantfromwhichthe
fowtookplace.
Clearly,therefore,thefactthatadeliberateactofathirdpartycausedthepollutiondoesnotinitselfmean
thatthedefendantscreationofasituationinwhichthethirdpartycouldsoactdidnotalsocausethe
pollutionforthepurposesofsection85(1).[emphasisadded]
Footnotes
159
[1999]AC22
160
[2008]1AC269,perLordBinghamat15and16
161
[1999]AC22atpage31-32
8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
LordHoffmanconcludedthatthemischievousactopeningthetapdidnotbreakthechainofcausationif,
ontheevidence,itwasonewhichcouldbeexpectedoranticipatedintheordinarycourseofthings.He
said:
162
(4)...If the defendant did something which produced a situation in which the polluting matter could
escapebutanecessaryconditionoftheactualescapewhichhappenedwasalsotheactofathirdpartyor
anaturalevent,thejusticesshouldconsiderwhetherthatactoreventshouldberegardedasanormalfact
oflifeorsomethingextraordinary.Ifitwasinthegeneralrunofthingsamatterofordinaryoccurrence,
itwillnotnegativethecausaleffectofthedefendantsacts,evenifitwasnotforeseeablethatitwould
happen to that particular defendant or take that particular form. If it can be regarded as something
extraordinary,itwillbeopentothejusticestoholdthatthedefendantdidnotcausethepollution.
(5)Thedistinctionbetweenordinaryandextraordinaryisoneoffactanddegreetowhichthejustices
mustapplytheircommonsenseandknowledgeofwhathappensinthearea.
Directions
Thejudgewillneedidentifythelegalrequirementsofcausation.Thejurymustdecidewhetherthe
defendantcausedtheresult.
Itmay,andusuallywillbe,enoughfortheprosecutiontoestablishthatthedefendantsactwasoneof
theoperativecausesoftheresult,inwhichcasethejuryshouldbedirectedthatitmustbeasignifcantor
substantialcauseinthesensethatitmustbemorethantrivial,trifingorminimal.
Whentheevidenceisthatthedefendantsetintrainasequenceofeventswhichledtotheresult,butthe
juryneedstoconsiderwhetheraneweventhasintervenedsoastobreakthechainofcausation,theywill
needhelpontheissueofforeseeability.Thejuryshouldbedirectedtoconsiderwhetherthenewevent
isonewhichcouldsensiblyhavebeenanticipatedbyareasonableperson,inthecircumstancesknown
tothedefendantatthetime,asapossibleconsequenceofthedefendantsact.Ifitcouldnot,thenthey
shouldconcludethatthechainofcausationwasbrokenandthedefendantsactshouldnotbetreated
asanoperativecause.Iftheresultcouldsensiblyhavebeenanticipatedthejurymustbesurethatthe
defendantsactwasasubstantialandnotatrivialcauseoftheresult.
Wherethejuryneedtoconsidertheresponseofthevictimhimselftotheunlawfulandthreateningact
ofthedefendant,theyshouldbedirectedthattheymustbesurethat(1)theresponsewasareactionto
thedefendantsunlawfulactandnotthevictimsfreechoiceand(2)wasaresponsewhichcouldsensibly
havebeenanticipatedbyareasonablepersoninthecircumstancesknowntothedefendantatthetime.
Wherethechargeismanslaughterarisingfromthevictimsfightresponsethejurymustalsobesurethat
areasonablepersonwouldhaverealisedthatthedefendantsunlawfulactexposedthevictimtoariskof
some,althoughnotserious,relevantharm(i.e.inconsequenceoftheresponse).
Sources
Archbold17-66,18-8,19-10,12,19-100,32-12;BlackstoneA1.21/32;Smith&Hogan12ed.page74-93
Footnotes
162
Atpage35-36
0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(10) Agreement on the Factual Basis for the Verdict
Introduction
Therearecircumstancesinwhichthejudgemayneedtodirectthejurytotheeffectthatbeforetheyreturn
averdictofguiltytheymustbeunanimous(or,followingamajorityverdictdirection,agreedbytherequisite
majority)astothebasisuponwhichtheverdictisreturned.
(1) Particulars of things said or done
InBrown
163
theappellantwaschargedwithoffencesoffraudulentlyinducinginvestmentscontrarytosection
13(1)(a)ofthePreventionofFraud(Investments)Act1958,theparticularsbeingthathehadfraudulently
inducedapersontoenterintoagreementstoacquiresharesinacompany,bymakingmisleadingstatements.
Theprosecutionwasrequiredtoproveatleastonemisleadingstatement.Theappealwasallowedbecause
thetrialjudgefailedtodirectthejurythattheyshouldbeunanimousastoatleastonemisleadingstatement.
Thedangerwasthatsixjurorsmaybesureastoonestatementandsixsureastoanother.Ifthatwasso,the
prosecutionwouldhavefailedtoproveoneoftheessentialelementsoftheoffence,sincethejuryhadtobe
unanimousastothefactualbasisforit.EveleighLJ,givingthejudgmentofthecourtsaid:
164
Inacasesuchasthatwithwhichwearenowdealing,thefollowingprinciplesapply:1.Eachingredientof
theoffencemustbeprovedtothesatisfactionofeachandeverymemberofthejury(subjecttothemajority
direction).2.However,whereanumberofmattersarespecifedinthechargeastogetherconstitutingone
ingredientintheoffence,andanyoneofthemiscapableofdoingso,thenitisenoughtoestablishthe
ingredientthatanyoneofthemisproved;but(becauseofthefrstprincipleabove)anysuchmattermust
beprovedtothesatisfactionofthewholejury.Thejuryshouldbedirectedaccordingly......
InMitchell
165
thedefendantwaschargedwithunlawfulharassmentofanoccupiercontrarytosection1(3)(a)
ProtectionfromEvictionAct1977.Theparticularsoftheoffenceitemisedseveralseparateandisolatedacts
ofharassment.Thedefencewasthateithertheharassmenthadnotoccurredortheactallegedwasjustifed
inthecircumstances.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthejuryshouldhavebeendirectedoftheneedfor
unanimityinrespectofeachallegedactofharassment.Theprinciplestobeextractedfromthecaseswere:
(i)whereanumberofdifferentallegationsweremadeinasinglecount,thejudgeshouldconsider
whetherheshouldgivethejuryadirectionthattheymustallbeagreedontheparticularingredient
whichtheyrelyontofndthedefendantguiltyoftheoffencecharged;
(ii)suchadirectionwillbenecessaryonlyincomparativelyrarecases.Inthegreatmajorityofcases,
particularlycasesallegingdishonestyandcaseswheretheallegationsstandorfalltogether,sucha
directionwillnotbenecessary.Itisofthefrstimportancethatdirectionstothejuryshouldnotbe
overburdenedwithunnecessarywarningsanddirectionswhichserveonlytoconfusethem;
(iii)however,inanappropriatecasewheretherewasarealisticdangerthatthejurymightnotappreciate
thattheymustallbeagreedontheparticularingredientonwhichtheyrelytofndtheir
Footnotes
163
[1984]79CrAppR115(CA)
164
Atpage119
165
[1994]CrimLR66
1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
verdictofguiltyonthecount,andmightreturnaverdictofguiltyaschargedonthebasisthatsomeof
themfoundoneallegationprovedandothersfoundanotherallegationproved,sothattheywerenot
unanimousastotheallegationwhichprovedtheoffence,adirectionshouldbegiventhattheymustbe
unanimousastotheproofofthatingredient.
IntheMitchellsituationtheremaybeseveralallegationsofharassmentanytwoofwhichwouldsuffce.It
issuggestedthatprovidedthejuryunderstandsthat,iftheyareunanimousuponasuffcientnumberof
particularswhich,theyarealsounanimousinfndingconstitutetheessentialingredientofharassment,they
neednotbeconcernedtoreachadecisionaboutothersuponwhichtheycannotagree.
(2) Particulars of things stolen
Itwillnotbenecessaryfortheprosecutiontoprovethetheftofeacharticleallegedtohavebeenstolen
(MachentvQuinn
166
)providedthejuryisunanimousastoatleastone.
(3) Alternative evidential bases
Whentheoffencecharged(suchasaffrayorriot)isfoundeduponacontinuousseriesofevents,noBrown
directionisrequired,butwheretheeventsareseparatedintimeandplacesoastoallowforconvictionon
thebasisofeitherorboth,thewarningshouldbegiven.InSmith(ChristopherAnthony)
167
thedefendantwas
chargedwithaffray.Aviolentincidenttookplaceatapartyandspilledoutintothestreet.Theprosecution
reliedonthedefendantsparticipationineventsinthestreet.Duringthecourseoftheevidenceitemerged
thatthedefendanthadbeeninvolvedinside,andthejudgelefttothejurythepossibilityofconvictingonthat
basis.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthiswasanerror.LordBinghamCJsaid:
168
Itisessentialinconsideringthissubmissiontobearinmindthenatureoftheoffenceofaffray.Ittypically
involvesagroupofpeoplewhomaywellbeshouting,struggling,threatening,wavingweapons,throwing
objects,exchangingandthreateningblowsandsoon.Again,typicallyitinvolvesacontinuouscourseof
conduct,thecriminalcharacterofwhichdependsonthegeneralnatureandeffectoftheconductasa
wholeandnotonparticularincidentsandeventswhichmaytakeplaceinthecourseofit.Wherereliance
isplacedonsuchacontinuouscourseofconductitisnotnecessaryfortheCrowntoidentifyandprove
particularincidents.Torequiresuchproofwoulddeprivesection3(1)ofthe1986Actofitsintendedeffect,
anddeprivelaw-abidingcitizensoftheprotectionwhichthisprovisionintendsthattheyshouldenjoy.It
wouldbeaskingtheimpossibletorequireajuryof12menandwomentobesatisfedbeyondreasonable
doubtthateachoranyincidentinanindiscriminatemlesuchasconstitutesthetypicalaffraywasproved
totherequisitestandard.
Differentconsiderationsmay,however,arisewheretheconductwhichisallegedtoconstituteanaffrayis
notcontinuousbutfallsintoseparatesequences.Thecharacteroftheconductreliedonineachsequence
mayinsuchacasebequitedifferentandsomaytheeffectonpersonswhoare(ormighthypotheticallybe)
presentatthescene.Thepossibilitythenarisesthathalfthejurymaybepersuadedthatthefrstsequence
amountedtoanaffrayandtheseconddidnot,andtheotherhalfofthejurymaybepersuadedthatthe
secondsequenceamountedtoanaffrayandthefrstdidnot.Theresultwouldthenbethattherewasno
unanimousjuryverdictinsupportofconvictionbasedoneithersequence.
Footnotes
166
[1970]2AllER255(DC)
167
[1997]1CrAppR14
168
Atpage17
2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
InKeeton
169
thechargewasviolentdisorderandtheincidenthadspilledoutsidefromanightclub.TheCourtof
Appealheldthatthedangerdidnotarisebecausethejudgedirectedthejurythattheywereconcernedonly
witheventsoutsidetheclub.HobhouseLJexplainedthecriticaldifferencebetweenarrivingataconclusionas
toanessentialelementofanoffencebydifferentevidentialroutesandarrivingataverdictonseparatefactual
bases:
Thenecessityforeachmemberofthejurytobesatisfedofeveryessentialingredientintheoffenceistobe
contrastedwiththefactthatnoteverymemberofthejuryisrequiredtotakethesameviewoftheevidence
inthecase.AswaspointedoutbyLawtonL.J.inAgbim[1979]Crim.L.R.171(seealso86Cr.App.R.at245),
eachjurorneednottakethesameevidentialrouteinarrivingathisconclusion.Somemaybeparticularly
impressed by the evidence of one witness, others by that of a different witness or by another piece of
evidence.Providedthattheevidencehascausedeachofthemtobesatisfedthattherelevantingredient
hasbeenproved,andtodosoonthesamefactualbasis,therequirementofunanimityissatisfed.
InCarr
170
thedefendantwaschargedwithmanslaughter.Whilerefusingtogiveparticularsoftheactrelied
ontheprosecutiongaveeveryappearanceofrelyinguponakaratekickdeliveredbythedefendant.The
defendantdeniedthekickbut,itwashiscase,hehadthrownapunchinselfdefence.Ontheunderstanding
thattheprosecutionreliedonthekickthedefencedidnotseektoexplorewithwitnessestheexact
circumstancesofthepunch.Thejudgelefttothejurythepossibilityofconvictingonthebasisofthepunch
withoutexplainingselfdefenceasitrelatedtothepunch.LordBinghamCJsaid:
171
...weconsiderthatthejudgeshouldonthefactsofthiscasehavedirectedthejurythattheymustreach
aunanimousdecisiononthedeliberateact(ifany)whichtheyfoundprovedandontheunlawfulnessof
thatact.DespitetheargumentofMrSpencer,wecannotconcludethatsuchadirectionwasgiveneither
implicitly,ashecontends,orexplicitly.Therewasinourjudgmentarealriskthatsomejurorsmighthave
foundthedefendanttohavekickedthedeceasedandothersfoundhimtohavedeliveredapunch,feeling
themselves entitled to convict because the judge had told them that the defendant could be convicted
oneitherbasis.Hadthathappenedtherewouldhavebeensixjurorsnotsatisfedthatthedefendanthad
deliveredthefatalkickandsixjurorsnotsatisfedthatthedeceasedhadbeenfelledbyapunchbythe
appellant.Theabsenceofsuchadirectiononthefactsofthiscasewasinourjudgmentafatalfawandwe
considerthatthatrealriskexisted.
Wewishtomakeitplainthatwearenotseekingtolaydownanygeneralrule.Therewilloftenbeminor
differencesbetweenthefactsallegedandtheevidencegivenbyvariouswitnesses,andthereisnoneed
for agreement between all jurors on fne factual differences. Here, however, the difference between the
twoformsofassaultdidnotdependonfnefactualdifferences,butonastarkdifferenceintheevidence
ofwitnessesdescribingthetwoevents,thosetwoformsofassaultgivingrisetoverydifferentdefences.
Weregardthiscase,takenonitsownfacts,asonewhichfallswithintheprincipleslaiddowninBrownand
Mitchell.
ForapplicationofthesameprinciplestosexualoffencesseeTurner
172
andD
173
.
Footnotes
169
[1995]2CrAppR241
170
[2000]2CrAppR149
171
Atpage158
172
[2000]CrimLR325
173
[2001]1CrAppR13
3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Separate causes of death
Onthetrialofanindividualformurderormanslaughtertheprosecutionmaybeabletoprovethatthe
defendant,byhisunlawfulact,killedthedeceasedbutmaynotbeabletoprovewhichofhisunlawfulacts
causedthedeath.Insuchcircumstancesthejudgeisnotrequiredtodirectthejurythattheyneedtobe
unanimousastothecauseofdeath,onlythatthedefendant,byoneorotheroracombinationofhisunlawful
actskilledthedeceased.
174
Inacaseofmurderthejudgewillneedtodirectthejurythattheymustbesure
thatanintenttokillortocausereallyseriousharmaccompaniedtheactwhichcauseddeath.Whereoneor
moreofthedefendantsactscouldhavecauseddeathandthedefendantclaimstohaveadefenceordifferent
defencesconcerningthoseacts(e.g.selfdefence,nointent)carefuldirectionswillberequired.
InBoreman
175
threedefendantswerechargedwithmurder.Itwasallegedthatallthreeattackedthedeceased
andthat,sometimelater,twoormoreofthemsetfretohisfat.Theexpertpathologistswereagreedthat
theeffectsoffremadeasignifcantcontributiontodeathbuttherewasdisagreementastowhetherthe
physicalattackcontributedtodeath.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthejudgeshould,inrespectofeach
defendant,haveexplainedtheroutestoverdict,inrespectofeachofwhichtheyneededtobeunanimous
andsure.Onthefacts,however,theverdictsweresafe.OttonLJsaid:
Thejudgeleftthecasetothejuryontwopossiblebases,deathbyinjuriesanddeathbyfreanddidnot
giveaBrowndirection.MrClarkesargumentthattherewasnodangerofthejurybeingdividedastothe
causationofdeathisnotinourviewanythingtothepoint.TheneedforaBrowndirectionarose,ifitarose,
notinrespectofissuesofcausationbutinrespectofthewaysorroutesbywhichtheoffencecouldhave
beencommitted.Althoughthejudgeappearstohaveformedtheviewthattheevidenceinrelationtothe
deliberatesettingofthefrewassomewhattenuous,hedidnotwithdrawtheissueofmurderbyfrefrom
the jury. He asked them to consider whether they were sure the fre was deliberately started and, if so,
whetheritwasstartedbythreedefendantsortwodefendantsactingtogether.Asitwasagreedthatthefre
wasanoperatingcauseofdeath,thisleftthejurywithtworoutesbywhichthemurdercouldhavebeen
committed:theinfictionofinjuries(iftheyweresurethatthesewereanoperatingcauseofdeath)andthe
deliberatesettingofthefre,whichwasadmittedlyanoperatingcauseofdeath.Thejudgedidnotdirect
thejurythatbeforetheycouldconvictanydefendanttheymustallagreeonwhichbasishewasguilty.In
thelightoftheauthoritiesaswehavesetthemout,wethinkheprobablyshouldhavedoneandshould
havegivenadirectiontailoredtothefactsofthecase.Thatmighthaveincludedthedirectionthatprovided
thejurywereagreedononebasisorrouteforeachdefendant,itwouldnotmatterthatsomejurorsalso
thoughtthatthatdefendanthadbeeninvolvedintheotherrouteaswell.
Footnotes
174
AttorneyGeneralsReferenceNo4of1980[1981]1WLR705
175
[2000]2CrAppR17
4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Principal and accessory
InGiannetto
176
theCourtofAppealconsideredtheeffectofsection8AccessoriesandAbettorsAct1861.The
defendantwasallegedeitherpersonallytohavekilledhiswifeortohaveencouragedanothertodoso;the
prosecutioncouldnotprovewhich.Thedefenceargumentwasthatthejurymustbeunanimousastothe
basisonwhichthedefendantwasguilty.Thecourtacceptedthatthejurymustbeunanimousastoeach
essentialingredientoftheoffence.However,inorderprovemurderitwasnotnecessarytoprovethatthe
defendantwas,personally,thekiller.KennedyLJsaid:
177
Inthecontextofthepresentcaseitseemstousthatthestartingpointmustbesection8oftheAccessories
andAbettorsAct1861,asamended,whichreads:
Whosoevershallaid,abet,counselorprocurethecommissionofanyindictableoffenceatcommon
laworbyvirtueofanyActpassedortobepassed,shallbeliabletobetried,indictedandpunishedasa
principaloffender.
Theeffectofthatsectionisthateveniftheappellantdidnomorethanencouragesomeoneelsetokill
hiswifehewasliabletobetried,indictedandpunishedasaprincipaloffender,andwhere,ashere,the
prosecution,forgoodreason,isunabletosaywhetherthedefendantdidmorethanencourage,itmustbe
opentotheprosecutiontoinvitethejuryasawholetofndthatatleastthedefendantencouraged.Ifthe
jurydoesconvictitmaydosowithsomejurorssatisfedthatthedefendantwasactuallythekiller,butall
willbesatisfedthatifnothimselfthekilleratleastheencouragedandbyreasonofthestatutoryprovision
inthe1861Actwhichwehavecitednomoreisnecessarytoprovetheoffence.Ifthatapproachiscorrect,
thenthisgroundofappealmustfail,soweturnnowtoconsiderwhether,inthelightofthemoresignifcant
authoritiescitedbeforeus,theapproachwhichwehaveoutlinedcanbesustained.Weproposetoreferto
theauthoritiesinchronologicalorder.
ThecourtfollowedthereasoninginthepersuasiveauthorityofThatchervR
178
,adecisionoftheSupreme
CourtofCanadaconsideringprovisionsofCanadasstatutoryCodesimilartothosecontainedwithinsection8
ofthe1861Act.KennedyLJdrewuponthejudgmentofDicksonCJCasfollows:
At p. 306 Dickson C.J.C. pointed out that section 21 of the Code has been designed to alleviate the
necessity for the Crown choosing between two different forms of participation in a criminal offence.
The law stipulates that both forms of participation are not only equally culpable, but should be treated
asonesinglemodeofincurringcriminalliability.Hewentontopointoutthatifthedifferentformsof
participationhadbeensetoutindifferentcountsthedefendantmightwellhavebeenacquittedoneach
count notwithstanding that each and every juror was certain beyond a reasonable doubt either that
Thatcherpersonallykilledhisex-wifeorthatheaidedandabettedsomeoneelsewhokilledhisex-wife.
That,saidtheChiefJustice,waspreciselywhatsection21oftheCodewasdesignedtoprevent,andhe
continued:Ifthereisevidencebeforeajurythatpointstoanaccusedeithercommittingacrimepersonally
or,alternatively,aidingandabettinganothertocommittheoffence,providedthejuryissatisfedbeyond
areasonabledoubtthattheaccuseddidoneortheother,itisamatterofindifferencewhichalternative
actuallyoccurred:section21precludesarequirementofjuryunanimityastotheparticularnatureofthe
accusedsparticipationintheoffence.Whyshouldthejurorbecompelledtomakeachoiceonasubject
whichisamatteroflegalindifference?
Footnotes
176
[1997]1CrAppR1
177
Atpage4
178
[1987]39DLR(4th)275
S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
If,ofcourse,oneofthepossibilitiesrevealedbytheevidenceexculpatesthedefendant,hemustbefound
notguilty,sinceitisonlyifallinnocentpossibilitiesareexcludedthataverdictofguiltycanbejustifed.
CommentingupontheviewofProfessorJohnSmithinhiscommentaryintheCriminalLawReview,Kennedy
LJsaid:
In an article in the 1988 Criminal Law Review Professor Smith considered the English authorities, and
concludedthattheprinciplestatedinBrownapplieswhentheprosecutionallegemorethanonefactual
basisforthecrimechargedanditisnotpossibletosayifitwasnottheonethenitmusthavebeenthe
other [1988] Crim.L.R. 344 . If in any given case the factual basis of the crime charged is in reality
coterminouswithanessentialelementoringredientoftheoffencethenwecanacceptwithoutdiffculty
ProfessorSmithsformulation,andinrelationtothefactsofthepresentcaseitwaspossibletosay,plainly
andtheprosecutiondidsay,thatiftheappellantwasnothimselfthekiller,thenheinstigatedtheoffence.
(6) Enquiry as to basis for verdict
Itfollowsthatifthejudgeintendstoaskthejurywhethertheyhaveconvictedononebasisratherthan
anothertheymustbetoldthattheyneedtobeunanimousastothatbasis.Unlessthejuryhasbeenso
directeditisnotpracticallypossibletoaskthequestion.
TheCourtofAppealhasconsideredonseveraloccasionstheimpactonsentencingofaverdictof
manslaughterasanalternativetomurderwherethejurycouldhavereturnedtheverdictonmorethanone
basis.InMatheson
179
LordGoddardCJsaid,obiter,thatwherethejuryreturnedsuchaverdicttheyshouldbe
askedforthebasisonwhichtheyreturnedit,forexamplediminishedresponsibilityorprovocation,orboth.If
thejuryhasfollowedaRoutetoVerdictprovidedbythetrialjudgetheymayneverhavereacheddiminished
responsibilitybecausetheyhadalreadyresolvedtoreturnaverdictofmanslaughteronthegroundsof
provocation,theburdenbeingupontheprosecutiontodisproveprovocation.Equally,theymaynothave
reachedprovocationbecausetheywerenotsurethattheprosecutionhadprovedtheintentrequiredfor
murder.
InJones(DouglasLeary)
180
theCourtofAppealheldthatthejudgewasnotobligedtogiveadirectionthatthe
jurymustbeunanimousastothebasisuponwhichtheyfoundthedefendantnotguiltyofmurderbutguilty
ofmanslaughter,sincetheessentialingredientofmanslaughterwasanunlawfulactgivingrisetoariskof
harmwhichactuallycauseddeath.Itisrespectfullysuggestedthat:
(1)Ifhalfthejuryisnotsurethatthedefendanthadtheintentrequiredformurderandtheotherhalfis
surehedidbutthoughthemayhavebeenprovoked,or
(2)Ifhalfthejuryconcludesthatthedefendantmayhavebeenprovokedandtheotherhalfissurehewas
notbutconcludeitislikelyhisresponsibilitywasdiminished,
theprosecutionshouldbeentitledtoare-trialoftheoffenceofmurder.Ifthejuryreceivesawrittenrouteto
verdictwhichsetsouteachlogicalstep((1)intent,(2)provocation,(3)diminishedresponsibility)andaretold
thattheyshouldbeunanimous(orinalawfulmajority)intheiranswertoeachquestionbeforeproceedingto
Footnotes
179
[1958]1WLR474
180
TheTimes17February1999
o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
thenext,thepracticalresultwillbethateitherthejurycannotreachaverdictortheywillbeagreeduponthe
basisforaverdictofguiltyofmanslaughter.
Thejudgehasthediscretionwhethertomaketheenquiry.
181
Ifhedoesnotthejudgemayformhisownview
upontheevidenceand,ifhedoes,heshouldexplainhisreasonsfortheviewhehasreached.
182
Footnotes
181
Cawthorne[1996]2CrAppR(S)445
182
Byrne[2003]1CrAppR(S)68,[2002]EWCACrim1975
7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 6: witnesses
(1) Special Measures
Introduction
Section32YouthJusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999(asamendedbyCriminalJusticeAct2003,section
331andschedule36,paragraphs74and75)provides:
Whereonatrialonindictmentwithajuryevidencehasbeengiveninaccordancewithaspecial
measures direction, the judge must give the jury such warning (if any) as the judge considers
necessarytoensurethatthefactthatthedirectionwasgiveninrelationtothewitnessdoesnot
prejudicetheaccused.
Specialmeasuresdirectionsmaypermitevidencetobegiven
183
:
(i) Behindscreens
184
;
(ii) Bymeansoflivelink
185
;
(iii) Inprivate
186
;
(iv) Inchiefbyvideorecording
187
;
(v) Withtheaidofanintermediary
188
;
(vi) Withtheaidofadevicetocommunicatequestionsoranswers
189
.
InBrownandGrant
190
theCourtofAppealheldthatthestatutoryobligationwastogivethewarning.Ifthe
warningwasgivenwhenthewitnessgaveevidenceitwasnotessentialtorepeatitinthesummingup.
Directions
Therisktobeavoidedisprejudicetothedefendant.Theonlyadverseinferencelikelytooccurtothejury
isthepossibilitythatithasbeennecessarytoprotectthewitnessfromthedefendantorhisassociates.
Judgesusuallyinformthejurythattheuseofscreens/livelink/videorecordedevidenceinchiefhas
becomecommonplace.
191
Thepurposeofscreensandlivelinkistopermitthewitnessthecomfortof
givingevidenceawayfromthepublicgaze.
Footnotes
183
Fortheconditionsseesections16-22YJCEA1999andRule29CriminalProcedureRules
184
Section23YJCEA1999
185
Section24YJCEA1999
186
Section25YJCEA1999
187
Section27YJCEA1999
188
Section29YJCEA1999
189
Section31YJCEA1999.Notesection28(crossexaminationandre-examinationonvideo)notyetinforce.
190
[2004]EWCACrim1620;[2004]CrimLR1034
191
Theuseofspecialmeasuresisnotconfnedtoanyparticularcategoryofcase.Theycanbeusedinanycaseinwhichthestatutory
criteriaaremet.
6: witnesses
8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thejuryshouldnotthinkthatthisrefectsinanywayonthedefendantorhiscase.
192
ThejurymaybeinformedthatanABEinterviewistostandasthewitnessevidenceinchief.Forthat
reasonitisimportanttopaythesamecloseattentionasifthewitnesshadbeenpresentincourttogive
theevidence.ItisnotlikeaphotographoraCCTVflmoftheincidentwhichcanbeconsultedagainlater.
Footnotes
192
BrownandGrantat18and19

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Anonymous Witnesses
Introduction
1. InDavis
193
theHouseofLordsdeclaredthattherewasnodiscretionatcommonlawtopermitwitnesses
togiveevidenceanonymously.On22July2008theCriminalEvidence(WitnessAnonymity)Act2008
receivedRoyalAssent.Asfrom1January2010sections2-5ofthe2008Actarereplaced,inalmost
identicalterms,bysections86-90CoronersandJusticeAct2009.
2. The2008Actabolishedanyexistingcommonlawrulesrelatingtothewithholdingofawitnessidentity
fromthedefendantbutotherwiseleftuntouchedtherulesrelatingtopublicinterestimmunity.
194
The
2008andthe2009Actscreatedastatutoryschemefortheexceptionaladmissionofevidencebyan
anonymouswitness.Theapplicationmaybemadebytheprosecutionorthedefence.TheAttorney
Generalhasissuedguidelinestoprosecutorsastotheprinciplestobeconsideredbeforeanapplication
ismade.
195
PendingspecifcrulestobemadebytheCriminalProcedureRulesCommittee
196
,Practice
DirectionI.15hasbeenaddedtotheConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirectionasamendmentno.21.
197
3. Theapplicant
198
mustsatisfyConditionsA-C
199
andindecidingwhetherthoseconditionsaresatisfedthe
courtmusthaveregardtothematterslistedinsection5.
4. TheprovisionsoftheActwerereviewedbyafvejudgeconstitutionoftheCourtofAppealinMayersand
Others
200
.Ananonymityorderistoberegardedasaspecialmeasureoflastpracticableresort.
201
Save
intheexceptionalcircumstancesprovidedbytheActtheancientprinciplethatadefendantisentitledto
knowtheidentityofhisaccuserismaintained.
202
Therationaleofthestatutoryschemewasdescribedas
follows:
TheActmustbetakentorefectParliamentsviewofhowbesttoaddressthecountervailing
interestswhichariseineverycriminaltrial,thoseofthedefendant,thewitnessesandvictims,as
wellasthepublicinterestinafairtrialprocesswhichprotectstheinterestsofboth,andsofaras
possible,securestheconvictionofthosewhoareguiltyandtheacquittalofthosewhoarenot.
It provides a comprehensive statutory structure to deal with the many potentially conficting
problemstowhichwitnessanonymitymaygiverise.Itdoessointhecontextofnumerousother
provisionswhichaddressthefairnessofthetrialprocessaswellastheprotectionofwitnesses
andthepreservationoftheirrights,whethertheyaretobefoundinstatute,thecommonlawor
inthejurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourt.
203
5. Thereisnopoweratcommonlaworunderthe2008(orthe2009)Acttopermitthestatementofan
anonymouswitnesstoberead(e.g.undersection116orsection114CriminalJusticeAct2003).
204
Footnotes
193
[2008]3WLR125;[2008]UKHL36
194
Section1CriminalEvidence(WitnessAnonymity)Act2008
195
Issued21July2008,ArchboldAppendixA-273
196
Section3(8)CE(WA)A2008;section87(8)CandJA2009
197
ArchboldSupplement8-68s;BlackstoneD14.121andAppendix5
198
Prosecutorordefendant,section3CE(WA)A2008and,now,section87CandJA2009.
199
Section4CE(WA)A2008;section88CandJA2009.NotethechangetoConditionCinsection88(5).
200
[2009]1CrAppR30,[2008]EWCACrim1418
201
8
202
5
203
7
204
113
6: witnesses
100
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
205
14
206
[2009]EWCACrim213
Directions
Section90oftheCoronersandJusticeAct2009provides:
(1)Subsection(2)applieswhere,onatrialonindictmentwithajury,anyevidencehasbeengiven
byawitnessatatimewhenawitnessanonymityorderappliedtothewitness.
(2)Thejudgemustgivethejurysuchwarningasthejudgeconsidersappropriatetoensurethat
thefactthattheorderwasmadeinrelationtothewitnessdoesnotprejudicethedefendant.
InMayerandOthers
205
theCourtofAppealgaveassistanceastothescopeofsection7ofthe2008Actwhich
wasinidenticalterms:

Section 7dealsexpresslywithajudicialwarningtothejury,appropriatetoensurethatthe
defendant is not prejudiced by the fact of the order. In general terms, the warning must be
suffcient to ensure that the jury does not make any assumptions adverse to the defendant, or
favourabletothewitness,fromthefactthatananonymityorderhasbeenmade,andinparticular
mustnotdrawanimplicationorinferenceofguiltagainstthedefendant.Section 7 issuffcient,
andifitwerenot,weshouldinanyeventexpectjudgesaddressingtheproblem,furthertodirect
thejuryabouttheobviousdiffcultiesfacingadefendantwhoischallengingeitherthecredibility
ortheaccuracyofananonymouswitness.Weshouldaddthatwhenconsideringanappealagainst
convictiononthebroadgroundthatwitnessesanonymityordersshouldnothavebeenmade,and
thatthesubsequentconvictionisunsafe,thiscourtshouldstandbackandmakeitsownobjective
assessmentwhetherthetrialwasfair,evenif,atthetimewhenthejudgemadetheorder,itwas
reasonableandappropriate.OnthispointtheapproachsuggestedbythiscourtinDavis(Iain)was
notreversedorcriticisedintheHouseofLords.
Itfollowsthatdirectionstothejuryshouldinclude:
Awarningthatanonymityisnottobetakenasanyrefectionuponthedefendantorhiscase
Anexplanationhow,ifatall,theanonymityofthewitnesshasputthedefendantatadisadvantagein
theconductofhiscase
Thewarning,althoughphrasedinthecontextofthefactsofthecase,willbecommontoalldirections.
Theexplanationwill,however,dependupontheparticularexigenciesofthetrialfacedbythedefence.On
appealagainstconvictionfollowingawitnessanonymityorder,theCourtofAppealwillmakeanobjective
examinationofthefairnessofthetrial.Thatwillinvolveaconsiderationofthetrialjudgesapplicationofthe
statutorycriteria,thepracticalstepstakenbythetrialjudgetominimiseanydisadvantagetothedefendant
(e.g.thehandlingofdisclosureissues)andthecarewithwhichspecifcdiffcultiesforthedefenceandtherisks
inherentinthemwereexplainedinthesummingup.
InNazir
206
theCourtofAppealconsideredtheadmissionoftheevidence(underthepre-Daviscommonlaw)
ofananonymouswitnesswhogaveevidencethatshehadseenthevictimofanhonourkillingattemptto
escapefromthehousewhereshewaskilled.Itwasheldthattheevidencewouldhavebeenproperlyadmitted
101
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
underthe2008Act,thattherewasnounfairnessandthattheconvictionwassafe.Thetrialjudgesdirections
tothejuryonthesubjectofanonymitywerespecifcallyapproved.
207
IntheIllustrationbelowanattemptismadetoaddressasituationinwhichthejuryisalmostboundtoinfer
thatthewitnessanonymitywasnecessarytoprotectthewitnessesfromthedefendantsortheirassociates.
Thetrialjudgewillneedtodecidewhetheritisnecessarytoconfrontthatrealityanddealwithit,orwhether
asimpleinstructionnottospeculateandnottoregardanonymityasrelevanttothedefendantscasesis
suffcienttopreventprejudicetothedefendants.
Illustration witness anonymity orders acknowledgement that witnesses may be in fear of disclosing
their identity fear not to be attributed to the defendants disadvantages of anonymity need to
exercise caution particular danger of undisclosed interest to serve existence of supporting evidence
value of anonymous evidence for the jury to decide
Thosewhowitnesseventsofterrifyingviolence,particularlyviolenceinthecontextofwhatlookslikegang
warfare,aresometimesafraidtogiveevidence.Theirfearofreprisalsdoesnotarisefromanythreatmade
byoronbehalfofanydefendant.Noneissuggestedhere.Itistheimaginationofthepossibleconsequences
ofgivingevidenceunderthepublicgazewhichgeneratestheirfear.Itisacentralprincipleofoursystemof
criminaljusticethatapersonaccusedofcrimeisentitledtoknowtheidentityofwitnesseswhoseevidence
incriminates or is capable of incriminating him. In rare circumstances the court is permitted to receive
evidencefromwitnesseswhoseidentityisunknownbecause,intheabsenceofsuchameasure,theevidence
wouldnotbeavailableatall.Thatiswhathashappenedinthepresentcase.
Becausethissituationissounusual,andbecauseitimposesundesirablelimitationsonyourconsideration
oftheevidence,itisnecessaryformetobespecifcinmydirectionstoyou.Itwouldbewrongtomakeany
assumptionsabouttheunderlyingreasonsforanonymity.Thefactthatawitnessisanonymoussupports
neitherthewitnessbelievabilitynor,inanyotherway,theprosecutioncaseagainstanydefendant.You
mustnotallowthefactthatevidencehasbeengivenbywitnesseswhoareanonymoustoprejudiceyour
mindstowardsthedefendantsortheircases.Youshouldconcentrateupontheevidencethatwitnesseshave
givenandnotspeculateuponwhatmayhavebeenthereasonfortheiranonymity.Thefactthatevidence
has been given anonymously is, however, relevant to your consideration of its reliability. If a defendant
knowstheidentityofawitnessheisinapositiontomakeenquiriesaboutthatwitnessbackgroundand
reputation.Bythismeansthedefendantwouldbeabletotesttheevidenceofthewitnessandyouwouldbe
inabetterpositiontomakethejudgementwhethertheevidenceisreliableornot.
In this case the prosecution has provided to the defence a good deal of information about each of the
witnesses, and you have heard that some of that material has been put to the witnesses and accepted.
To that extent the disadvantage to the defendants of not knowing the identity of their accusers has
been reduced. However, the defendants remain disadvantaged because the information supplied is itself
anonymised(i.e.itiseditedtoremoveanyreferenceswhichmayidentifythewitness).Nothingcapableof
leadingtothediscoveryofthewitnessidentityhasbeendisclosed.Itfollowsthattheremaybematerialof
whichyouhavenotheardwhichcouldhaveaffectedyourjudgmentaboutthereliabilityoftheevidence.
Youshouldthereforeexercisecautionwhenyouareconsideringtheevidenceofeachofthesewitnesses.In
particularyoushouldnotmakeassumptionsabouttheirimpartialitybutyoushouldexaminetheevidence
ofeachwitnessonitsmerits.
Footnotes
207
Seealsothesimilarpost-2008ActexaminationofthetrialjudgesdecisiontoadmitanonymousevidenceinPowarandPowar
[2009]EWCACrim594
6: witnesses 6: witnesses
102
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Threeofthewitnessesareanonymous.Eachthemidentifesoneormoreofthedefendantsasmembers
of the group which carried out the attack on the deceased. Two of the witnesses A and B were with
thedeceasedwhentheattacktookplace.Theybothidentifedthefrstdefendantastheknifeman.Itis
submittedonbehalfofthedefendantsthatitisquiteclearAandBweremembersofastreetgangof
whichthedeceasedwasaleadingmember.DespitethereluctanceofAandBtorevealtheirmembership
ofthegang,youmaythinkitsafertoconcludeforthepurposeofjudgingtheirevidencethattheydidindeed
havealoyaltytothedeceasedwhichexceededthatofordinaryfriendship.Thedangerwhichishighlighted
onbehalfofthedefendantsisthatAandBmayhavebeenmotivatedtogivetheevidencetheydidbytheir
enmitytowardsthefrstdefendantandhisgroupratherthanbyadesiretoassistjustice.Thisisapossibility
whichyoumustbearfrmlyinmindwhenyouconsidertheirevidence.Althoughyouhavebeeninformed
ofthewitnesspreviousconvictions,thedefencesubmitsthattheiranonymityhaspreventedthekindof
enquirieswhichmight,throughothersources,haverevealedthefullextentoftheiractivitiesasmembersof
theXStreetgang,andoftheirattitudetowardsthedefendants.
YouwillneedtoconsiderthecircumstantialdetailoftheevidencegivenbyAandBinordertoassess
whetheryoucanbesurethatanimpropermotivecanbeexcluded.Ifyouareleftindoubtthenyoushould
not act upon their evidence. In making your assessment of their evidence you will also want to consider
whetheritissupportedbyevidencefromsourcesindependentofthem.YouwillrecallthatbothAandB,
whenspokentobythepoliceonthedayofthekilling,namedthedefendantsasresponsible.Theywerenot
toknowthatsome6weekslaterscientifcevidencewouldemergewhichwascapableofincriminatingthe
defendants. The scientifc evidence is not, as the prosecution acknowledges, conclusive. However, to the
extentthatitdoestendtolinkthedefendantswiththekilling,itisrelevanttothequestionwhetherAand
Bhavegiventruthfulevidence.Whetheritinfactassistsinthisrespectisforyoutojudge.
WitnessC,itisacceptedonallsides,isindependentinthesensethatshehasnoassociationwiththeX
Streetgang,norwithanyofthedefendants.Shelivesseveralmilesawayfromthedisputedterritoryand
happenedtobeintheareaonlybecauseshehadbusinesstoconductattheindustrialestatewherethe
attacktookplace.Shewasparkedinacarashortdistanceawayfromtheattackwhentheattackersranpast
hermakinggoodtheirescape.WitnessCalsoattendedanidentifcationprocedurewheresheidentifedtwo
ofthethreedefendants.ItisnotsuggestedthatCisanyoneotherthananhonestwitnessdoingherbest
tomakeanaccurateidentifcationofthoseshesaw.Itisthedefencecasethatshewasmistaken.Sheisina
differentpositionfromwitnessesAandBtotheextentthatitcannotreasonablybesaidthatthereisany
furtherinformationaboutherwhichmightaffectyourassessmentofthetruthfulnessofherevidence.The
defencehasbeenabletoaskallquestionsrelevanttotheaccuracyofheridentifcationevidence,including
opportunity, conditions and the quality of her recollection. In due course I shall explain what should be
yourapproachtoidentifcationevidenceingeneralandtoCsidentifcationinparticular.If,however,you
concludethatwitnessCgavereliableandaccurateevidenceitiscapableofprovidingadditionalsupportto
theevidenceofwitnessesAandB.Theextenttowhichitassistsyouinthatregardisamatterforyouto
considerandresolve.
Sources
Archbold8-68a/68c,Supplement8-68a/71,12-77,AppendixA-273;BlackstoneD14.120/122
103
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
208
WearegratefultoHHJudgeNicholasBrowneQC,CourseDirectorfortheSeriousSexualOffencesSeminars,forthecontentof
thissection.NotealsotheEqualTreatmentBenchbook,Parts4(Children)and5(Disability).
6: witnesses
(3) Intermediaries

208
Introduction
1. Whenanintermediaryisemployedinthetrialthejurymustbegivenadirectionundersection32Youth
JusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999(paragraph15below).Theroleoftheintermediarywillneedtobe
explainedtothejuryattheoutset.
2. Section29(1)-(2)ofthe1999Actprovides:
(1) Aspecialmeasuresdirectionmayprovideforanyexaminationofthewitness(howeverandwherever
conducted)tobeconductedthroughaninterpreterorotherpersonapprovedbythecourtforthe
purposesofthissection(anintermediary),
(2) Thefunctionofanintermediaryistocommunicate:-
a) tothewitness,questionsputtothewitness,and
b) toanypersonaskingsuchquestions,theanswersgivenbythewitnessinreplytothem,
andexplainsuchquestionsoranswerssofarasnecessarytoenablethemtobeunderstoodtothe
witnessorpersoninquestion.
3. ThesectioncameintoforceinFebruary2004,withanumberofpilotcourts,andwasgenerallyavailable
incourtsinEnglandandWales,bothMagistratesandCrownCourts,from2006.Althoughthestatute
onlyallowsfortheiruseinrespectofprosecutionanddefencewitnesses,courtshave,intheexercise
oftheirinherentjurisdiction,orderedtheuseofanintermediaryforadefendantoutsidethestatutory
scheme.
4. Allintermediariesarespeechandlanguagespecialists.Mostarespeechandlanguagetherapists,with
manyyearsofpracticalexperience.Theirroleisindependent,andtheirprimarydutyistoassistthecourt
withtwowaycommunication.Intermediariesarenotexpertwitnesses.Theyarenevertoexpressan
opinionastowhetherornotthewitnessisspeakingthetruth.Onlyanappropriateintermediaryfora
particularcasecanbeappointedbythecourt.Suchapersoncanbe:
(1) aregisteredintermediaryregisteredbytheIntermediariesRegistrationBoardandchosenforskillin
facilitatingcommunicationwithvulnerablepeopleandwhohavecompletedanapprovedassessed
trainingcourseontheroleofintermediariesincriminalproceedings,
(2) anunregisteredintermediary,butwhoissomeonewhoisarecognizedprofessionalintwoway
communicationsuchasaspeechtherapist,
(3) inanappropriateandrarecase,acarerorfamilymember,whocanovercomeparticular
problemswithawitnessandapersonwhoknowsthewitnesswell.Insuchacase,aregistered
intermediaryshouldhavepositivelyevaluatedtheabilityofthecarerorfamilymembertofacilitate
communication.
6: witnesses
104
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Intermediariesareonlyavailableforcertaincategoriesofwitnesses,defnedbysection16oftheYouth
JusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999:-
(1) witnessesundertheageof17atthetimeofthehearing,
(2) anywitnessthequalityofwhoseevidenceislikely,thecourtconsiders,tobediminishedbyreason
of:-
a) anymentaldisorderwithinthemeaningoftheMentalHealthAct1983,or
b) asignifcantimpairmentofintelligenceandsocialfunctioning,or
c) aphysicaldisabilityoraphysicaldisorder.
Inassessingwhetherthewitnessfallsintocategory2(c)thecourtmustconsideranyviewsexpressed
bythewitness.Qualityofevidencereferstoitscompleteness,coherence(abilitytoanswerquestions
intelligibly)andaccuracy.
Procedure
6. Inthecaseofprosecutionwitnesses,theinvestigatingpoliceoffcershouldidentifyanycommunication
diffcultieswhichthewitnesshas.AfteranearlyspecialmeasuresmeetingwiththeCrownProsecuting
Service,theoffcermustcontacttheOCJR,whichmanagesthenationalregister,andprovidesfunding.
Theoffcerthenmakesareferral.Theintermediarythenmeetsandassessesthewitness.Consentofthe
witnessortheparentorguardianisnecessary.
7. Theoffcerprovidestheintermediarywithanoutlineoftheallegedoffence.Theintermediarymeetsthe
witness,makesawrittenassessmentandwritesareportforthecourt.Theintermediarydoesnotdiscuss
thenatureofthecasewiththewitness,andathirdpartymustbepresentattheassessment.Thisshould
betheinterviewingoffcer.Asaresultoftheassessment,theintermediaryreachesaconclusiononthe
followingmatters:-
(1) whetherthewitnesscangiveevidenceatall,
(2) whetherthewitnesscangiveevidencewiththeassistanceofanintermediary,
(3) whetherthewitnessneedstheassistanceofanintermediarytogivehis/herbestevidence,
(4) whethertheintermediarypossessestheparticularskillsrequiredtohelpthiswitness,
(5) whetherthewitnesswishestheintermediarytoassisthim/her.
8. Ifthewitnesscangiveevidenceassistedbytheintermediary,theABEinterviewisthenconducted.The
intermediaryisnottheinterviewingoffcer.Theintermediarysroleistoassisttwowaycommunication.
Theintermediaryisrequiredtomakeadeclarationundersection29(6)oftheYJCEA1999asfollows:
IsolemnlysincerelyandtrulydeclarethatIwillwellandfaithfullycommunicatequestionsand
answersandmaketrueexplanationofallmattersandthingsasshallberequiredofmeaccording
tothebestofmyskillandunderstanding.
Thesamedeclarationisusedattrial.
10S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
9. Oncetheinterviewisconcluded,theintermediarywritesareporttothecourtsettingoutthewitnesss
needs,andreachingtheirconclusionsonhowthewitnesscangivetheirbestevidencebeforethecourt.
10. Inthecaseofadefendant,thisisnotanapplicationforspecialmeasures.However,itshouldbemade
inwritingandsupportedbythereportoftheintermediary.Itisnecessarytoascertainwhetherthe
intermediaryisrequiredthroughoutthetrialorjustforthegivingofevidencebythedefendant.Therole
oftheintermediarymustbeexplainedtothejury.
Pre trial hearings and case management
11. Often,thereisnointermediaryattheABEinterviewstage,buttheneedforanintermediaryisidentifed
bytheprosecutionadvocateuponassessmentoftheevidence.Notinfrequently,theJudgehimself/herself
seestheneedforanintermediary.
12. Anapplicationforspecialmeasuresmustbemadeforprovisionofanintermediaryattrial.Ifan
intermediaryisalreadyinstructed,theJudgemustgiveretrospectiveapproval.Ifnot,theJudgemust
considertheapplication,supportedbyawrittenreportbytheintermediary.Theprocedureissetout
atRule29oftheCPR,involvingawrittenapplication,aspecifctimetable,andadirectionshearing.
Generally,thisisdoneatthestageofthePCMH.However,suchanapplicationcanbemadelate,evenon
thedayofthetrialitself.Often,theapplicationforanintermediaryisunopposed,butifitisopposed,the
Judgemustmakeajudgementundersections16and29theAct.
The intermediary at trial
13. Beforethetrialstarts,itisessentialfortheJudgetoconductashortpre-trialhearingtosetgroundrules
forexaminationofthewitnesswiththeintermediarypresent.Theconclusionsoftheintermediarys
reportarediscussed.Matterswhichshouldbeairedinclude:problemsofcomprehensionproblems;
atwhatintervalsbreaksshouldbetaken;howandwhentheintermediaryshouldintervene;what
vocabularyshouldbeusedforbodyparts;theuseofdiagramstosaveembarrassment;thewearing
ofwigsandgowns;therephrasingofaquestion;whetheritisnecessaryforthewitnesstowatchthe
ABEinterviewinthepresenceofthejury;whethertheinterviewmaybewatchedononedayandcross
examinationtakeplaceonthenext.Theadvocatesaregenerallyadvisedoftheneedtoaskshortand
simplequestionsandwarnedthat,intheeventofintervention,theywillbegivenjustoneopportunityto
rephraseaquestion.
Explanation to the jury
14. TheJudgemustthenexplaintothejurytheroleoftheintermediaryatcourt.Thefollowingpointsmust
bestressed:-
(1) theintermediaryisnotanexpert,
(2) theintermediaryisindependent,
(3) theintermediaryispresenttoassistwithtwowaycommunicationincourt,
(4) theintermediarywillonlyinterveneifacommunicationissueisidentifed.
(5) Anyparticularhealthproblemsofthewitnessshouldbeidentifedandexplained.
6: witnesses
10o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
15. Aswithotherspecialmeasures,theJudgeisrequired(section32)toinformthejurythatthefactthat
thereisanintermediarymustnotprejudicethedefendant.Thejurywouldnotseetheintermediarys
writtenreport.ThatisforthebeneftoftheJudgeindecidingwhetherornotanintermediaryisan
appropriatespecialmeasure,andenablestheJudgetostayincontroloftheproceedings.
16. OncetheABEinterviewhasbeenplayed,theintermediaryshouldmakethedeclarationincourt(see
paragraph8above)andbriefyexplainhisorherqualifcationsandtraining.
17. Oncecrossexaminationhascommenced,theprimaryroleoftheintermediaryistoensurethatthe
witnessunderstandsquestionsput,andtointerveneifthequestionistoolong,orcomplexor,forsome
otherreason,thewitnessdoesnotunderstandthequestion.Iftheadvocateasksappropriateshort
simplequestions,theintermediarywillprobablynothavetointerveneatall.TheJudgesdutytocontrol
questioningisparamount;he/sheshouldinterveneifneeded,eveniftheintermediarydoesnot.
18. InMeasuringUp,areportwrittenbyPlotnikoffandWoolfson,commissionedbytheNSPCC,and
publishedinJuly2009,theauthorscarriedoutastudyoftheexperienceswhichyoungwitnesseshad
undergoneatcourt.182childwitnesseswereinterviewedbetweenMay2007andOctober2008.Inthe
sectionofthereportheadedEnsuringappropriatequestioningatcourt,theauthorsstate:-
Thefndingsofthisstudyindicateagapbetweentheintentofthisspecialmeasurelegislation
(i.etheintermediaryspecialmeasure)andtheabilityorreceptivenessofpractitionerstorecognize
youngwitnesseseligibility.TheyalsohighlighttheneedforJudgesandmagistratestosetground
rulesforquestioning,whetherornotanintermediaryisappointed;askingforinformationabout
the childs communication abilities and concentration span; inviting advocates to state what
stepstheyaretakingtoensurethatquestionsaredevelopmentallyappropriate;andwarningthat
iftheyfailtodoso,theJudgeormagistrateswillintervene.
Sources
Archbold8-55p,64a;BlackstoneD14.118/119;CPR29
107
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 7: iDentiFication eviDence
(1) Visual Identifcation
Introduction
TheriskofhonestbutmistakenvisualidentifcationofsuspectsrequiresinvestigatorstocomplywithCodeD
(PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984),
209
andjudgestobediscriminatingintheadmissionofevidence,and
explicitastotheriskofmistakeintheirdirectionstothejury.
210
TheproceduresrequiredbyCodeDaredesignedtotestthewitnessabilitytoidentifytheperson[he]saw
onapreviousoccasionandtoprovidesafeguardsagainstmistakenidentifcation.
211
Theprincipalsafeguardsprovidedare:
(1) Makingarecordofadescriptionfrstgivenbythewitness,beforeanyidentifcationproceduretakes
place.
212
(2) Holdinganidentifcationprocedurewhenevertheidentifcationisdisputed,unlessitisnot
practicableoritwouldservenousefulpurpose.
213
BreachoftheproceduresprovidedbyCodeDmayformthebasisofanapplicationtoexcludethe
identifcationevidenceundersection78PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984.
Judgesarerequiredtoexaminethestateofidentifcationevidenceatthecloseoftheprosecutioncaseandto
stopthecaseifitispoorandunsupported.
214
Directions
ATurnbulldirectionisrequiredwhereidentifcationisasubstantialissue.Thisincludesrecognitionevidence.
Itwillnotberequiredwherethesoleissueisthetruthfulnessofthewitnessunless,assumingthewitnesstobe
honest,thereisalsoroomformistake.
215
TherequirementsofaTurnbulldirectionareasfollows:
Thereisaspecialneedforcautionwhenthecaseagainsttheaccuseddependsuponthecorrectnessof
avisualidentifcation
Thereasonforcautionisexperiencethatawitnesswhoisgenuinelyconvincedofthecorrectnessof
hisidentifcationmaybeimpressivebutmistaken.Thismaybesoevenwhenanumberofwitnesses
makethesameidentifcation
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
209
ArchboldSupplementA-112;BlackstoneAppendix1,page2751
210
Turnbull[1977]QB224
211
CodeD1.2
212
CodeD3.1and3.2(a)
213
CodeD3.12
214
Fergus(Ivan)[1994]98CrAppR313
215
Cape[1996]1CrAppR191;seealsoBeckford97CrAppR409(PC);Capron[2006]UKPC34;Giga[2007]CrimLR571
108
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thejuryshouldexaminethecircumstancesinwhichtheidentifcationcametobemade.Thereare
twoelementstothesecircumstancesbothofwhichgotothereliabilityoftheidentifcation:(1)
theopportunitytoregisterandrecordthefeaturesofthesuspectand(2)thereliablerecallofthose
featureswhenmakingtheidentifcation.
(1) (i)Howlongwasthesuspectunderobservation?
(ii)Atwhatdistance?
(iii)Inwhatlight?
(iv)Wastheobservationimpededinanyand,ifso,whatway?
(v)Hadthewitnessseenthesuspectbefore(i.e.wasthisrecognition?)and,ifso,howoftenandin
whatcircumstances?
(2)(i)Whatperiodelapsedbetweentheobservationandtheidentifcation?
(ii)Wasthereanymaterialdifferencebetweenthedescriptiongivenbythewitnessatthetime
andthesuspectsactualappearance?
(iii)Anyothercircumstancesemergingintheevidencewhichmighthaveaffectedthereliabilityof
theidentifcation(e.g.pressphotographs,conversationswithothers)
Anyspecifcweaknessesintheidentifcationshouldbeidentifed(e.g.feetingopportunity,badlight,
speedofincident,photographsinadvertentlyviewed)
Evidencecapable(and,whennecessary,notcapable)ofsupportingtheidentifcationshouldbe
identifed
Ifthedefenceisalibithejuryshouldbedirectedthatifthealibiisrejecteditdoesnot(ormaynot)
followthatthedefendantcommittedtheoffencebecauseafalsealibimaybeconstructedforreasons
otherthanguilt(e.g.becauseanalibiiseasiertopresentthanthetruedefence)
IfthejudgeadmitstheevidencenotwithstandingabreachofCodeD,heshouldexplainhowthe
breachmayaffectthejurysconsiderationoftheevidence.InForbes
216
Vrecognisedhisassailantinthe
street.Noidentifcationparadewasheld.TheAppellateCommitteesaid:
In any case where a breach of Code D has been established but the trial judge has rejected an
applicationtoexcludeevidencetowhichthedefenceobjectedbecauseofthatbreach,thetrialjudge
shouldinthecourseofsumminguptothejury(a)explainthattherehasbeenabreachoftheCode
andhowithasarisen,and(b)invitethejurytoconsiderthepossibleeffectofthatbreach.TheCourt
ofAppealhassoruledonmanyoccasions,andweapprovethoserulings:see,forexampleRv.Quinn
[1995] 1 Cr App R 480 at 490F. The terms of the appropriate direction will vary from case to case
andbreachtobreach.Butifthebreachisafailuretoholdanidentifcationparadewhenrequired.....,
the jury should ordinarily be told that an identifcation parade enables a suspect to put the
reliability of an eye-witnesss identifcation to the test, that the suspect has lost the beneft of
that safeguard and that the jury should take account of that fact in its assessment of the whole
case, giving it such weight as it thinks fair. In cases where there has been an identifcation
parade with the consent of the suspect, and the eye-witness has identifed the suspect, in
circumstances involving no breach of the code, the trial judge will ordinarily tell the jury that
they can view the identifcation at the parade as strengthening the prosecution case but may also
Footnotes
216
[2001]1AC473,[2000]UKHL66
10
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
wish to alert the jury to the possible risk that the eye-witness may have identifed not the culprit who
committed the crime but the suspect identifed by the same witness on the earlier occasion.[emphasis
added]
Illustration evidence of visual identifcation (recognition) of an intruder at night particulars of
description taken down - witness recognises suspect in the street no identifcation procedure held
Facts
Thecaseagainstthedefendant,thatheburgledtheoffcesofXLtd,dependsuponthecorrectnessofthe
identifcationofthedefendantmadebyMrA,thecaretakerandsecurityguard.Letmeremindyouofhis
evidence.Hewassittinginhissecurityoffceatabout11pmwhenheheardacrash.Helefthisoffce,went
towardsthenoiseand,asheroundedthecornertotherearofpremises,hesawabrokenwindow.Inside,
onthegroundfoor,hesawafgure.Hekeptthefgureunderobservationforabout5minutes.Duringthat
timethepersoninsidewasmovingabout,apparentlytryingdrawerstodesksandflingcabinets.WhileMr
Awaskeepingobservationhewasmakingamobiletelephonecalltotheemergencyservices.Something
appearedtodisturbtheintruderwhomadehiswaybackoutofthewindow.MrAchallengedhimbutthe
intruderranoffinthedirectionofthecitycentre.ShortlyafterwardsPCBarrived.MrAtoldhimthathe
thoughthehadseentheintruderbefore.Healsoboreastrongresemblancetooneofthecleanerswho
workedattheoffcesthreedaysaweekbetween7pmand10pm.MrAthoughthehadseentheintruder
onoccasionsinthepastcongregatingwithothersonbenchesaroundthecenotaphinthetowncentre.PC
BwrotedownthedescriptionwhichMrAgavehim.MrAagreedtogowithPCBinhispolicecartothe
towncentretoseewhethertheintruderwasstillabout.Theyarrivedatthecenotaphatabout11.30pm
wheretheysawagroupofyoungmen.MrAimmediatelypointedoutaman,thedefendant,sittingona
benchwithothers,drinkingfromacanoflager.PCBapproachedthedefendantandarrestedhim.When
cautionedthedefendantsaid,Idontknownothingaboutabreakin.Ivebeenhereallnight.Itturnsout
thatthedefendantisthesonofoneofthecleanerswhoworksatXLtdthreedaysaweek.Thedefendant
hasnowgivenevidenceinsupportofhisalibiandhehascalledtwowitnessestoconfrmit.
Turnbull
When you are considering the identifcation evidence of Mr A, you need to exercise special caution. The
reasonforthisisthatexperiencetellsusthathonestandimpressivewitnesses,genuinelyconvincedofthe
correctnessoftheiridentifcation,haveinthepastmademistakes,evenanumberofwitnessesmakingthe
sameidentifcation.YoucannotconvictthedefendantunlessyouaresurethatMrAsidentifcationwas
accurateand,inmakingthatjudgment,youneedtolookcarefullyatthecircumstancesinwhichitwas
madeandatanyotherevidenceinthecasewhichmaysupportit.
Letusconsiderthecircumstancesinwhichtheidentifcationtookplaceand,frst,theopportunityMrAhad
tomakeareliablementalnoteofthefgurehewasobserving:
1. Mr A had the intruder under observation for a period of 5 minutes. However, for most of
that time he was looking at a shape. The intruder was wearing a waist length top with a hood
which he kept up. Only when the intruder was climbing out of the broken window, when
MrAwenttoconfronthim,didhehaveaclearviewofhisface.Thatviewlastedforafew
secondsonly.
110
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
2. Mr A was a short distance from the intruder at all times and very close to him for the last few
seconds.Hesaidthathewasabout6feetawayfromhimwhenhecameoutofthewindow.
3. There were no lights switched on inside the rooms where the intruder was walking about. There
were,however,lampstandardsinthestreetcloseby,whichgavesomeilluminationintotheground
foor.MrAsaidthatwhentheintruderclimbedoutofthewindowtherewasastreetlampdirectly
behindhimwhichgavehimagoodviewoftheintrudersface.
4. TherewasnothingtoimpedeMrAsviewastheintruderclimbedout.
5. MrAtoldyouthathethoughtherecognisedthedefendant,assoonashesawhim,assomeonehe
hadseenonseveraloccasions,hangingaboutinthetowncentrewithhismates.Thereasonwhy
hehadreasontorememberthedefendantwasbecauseheboreacloseresemblancetohisfather
whomMrAknewfromwork.Itismorediffcult,perhaps,forawitnesstotakeinthefeaturesofa
completestranger,thanitisforhimtorecognisethefeaturesofapersonheknowsalready.However,
youneedtobearinmindthatevenpeoplewellknowntooneanothermakemistakesinrecognition,
somethingwhichyoumayhaveexperiencedyourselves.
LetusnowlookatthecircumstancesinwhichMrAcametomaketheidentifcationinthestreet.
1. MrAwastakentothetowncentrebycarwithinminutesaftertheintruderhadleftinthatdirection.
Thisdoesnotappeartobeacaseinwhichtimemayhaveimpairedthewitnessmemoryofthe
featuresheobserved.
2. PCBreadoutthenotehemadeofMrAsdescriptionoftheintruder.Hewasabout510-6tall.He
waswearingadarkcolouredwaistlengthtopwithahood.Hewaswearingbluejeansandapairof
trainers.MrAcouldnotseetheintrudershairwhichwascoveredbythehoodbuthediddescribea
smallnoseandprominentfrontteeth.Healsosawatattooonthefngersofonehandbuthecould
notrecallwhichhand.Thedefendantwaswearingclothesofthisdescriptionwhenhewasarrested
halfanhourlater.TheonlydiscrepancyastophysicalfeaturesputtoMrAwasthatthedefendantis
59tall,not510orabove.YoushouldconsiderthatdifferencebetweenMrAsdescriptionandthe
defendantsheightanddecidewhetheritisamistakeormiscalculationwhichaffectsthereliability
ofMrAsevidence.
ItisclearthatMrAcouldnothavemadetheidentifcationhedidsolelyfromhisobservationoftheintruder
moving about inside the premises. His identifcation depends upon those few seconds when he had the
intruder in close view as he climbed out of the window. To that extent, Mr A had a limited opportunity
totakeinwhathewasseeing.Ontheotherhand,hehadasuffcientviewtogiveadescriptionalmost
immediatelyafterwards.
ItwassuggestedtoMrAonthedefendantsbehalfthathehadcorrectlyidentifedamanhehadseen
beforeinthetowncentrebuthewasmistakeninthinkingthattheintruderintheoffcewasthesameman.
MrAwasadamantthathehadtherightman.Youshouldconsidercarefullywhetherthereisanyroomfor
mistake.
111
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Breach of Code D
IncircumstancessuchasthosefacedbyPCB,namelyawitnesswhomaybeabletomakeanidentifcation
of a person not yet known, a Code of Practice exists to regulate the procedure to be followed by police
offcers.PCBactedproperlyundertheCodewhenhetookMrAtothetowncentreinanattempttofnd
theunknownintruder.
217
Theprocedurewas,fromPCBspointofview,successful,inthatMrAmadea
positiveidentifcation.However,sincethecorrectnessofMrAsidentifcationinthestreetwasdisputed,the
Codefurtherrequiredthataformalidentifcationprocedureshouldthenhavebeencarriedout.
218
Itwasnot
carriedout.Furthermore,followingthedefendantsreleaseonpolicebailheoffered,throughhissolicitor,to
standonanidentifcationparade.Theofferwasnotaccepted.Theformalidentifcationprocedurewould
haverequiredMrAtoviewanumberofpeople,eitherinflmorinperson,includingamongthemthe
defendant,forthepurposeoftestingthecorrectnessofMrAsidentifcationinthestreet.
219
Itexistsasa
safeguardfortheinterestsofthoseinthedefendantsposition,andgivestheopportunitytothewitnessto
refect.PCBtoldyouhethoughtthatafurtherprocedurewouldhaveservednousefulpurposebecauseMr
Ahadalreadymadehisidentifcationofthedefendantinthestreet.Ifhewentthroughanotherprocedure
MrAwouldsimplyberecognisingthemanarrestedinhispresence.Thatisanexplanationwhichyouwill
wishtoconsiderandnodoubtyouwillseesomesenseinit.Nevertheless,oneofthesafeguardsdeliberately
createdtoprotectsuspectsfrommistakenidentifcationwasomitted.WecannotnowknowwhetherMrA
would,ataformalidentifcationprocedure,haveentertainedsecondthoughtsaboutthecorrectnessofhis
identifcationinthestreetorwouldhavebeenabletomakeanyidentifcation.Itissaidonthedefendants
behalfthathisoffertotakepartinaformalprocedurewouldhardlyhavebeenmadeifheknewthatthe
evidenceagainsthimwouldsimplybeconfrmed.Youshouldbearthatinmindwhenjudgingthereliability
ofMrAsevidence.
Supporting Evidence
Whenyouaremakingthatjudgment,youshouldhaveregardtoanyotherevidencewhichtendstosupport
MrAsidentifcation.First,IwanttoremindyouofevidencewhichyoushouldnotregardassupportforMr
A.Counselfortheprosecutionsuggestedtoyouthattheburglarmaywellhavehadinsideknowledgeofthe
offcepremises;otherwise,whywouldasingleburglarbotherenteringpremisesnotordinarilyassociated
with the storage of items of value which are easily removable, such as money-it would not be easy for
himtoremoveacomputer,forexample.Thedefendantsfatherworkedinthesepremises.Heisthesort
ofpersonwhomighthavesuchinsideknowledge.Ifyourefectonthissubmission,itprovidesnosupport
independentofMrAbecauseitstartsfromapremisethatMrAsidentifcationiscorrect.Ifyouknewnothing
aboutthedefendant,youcouldnotpossiblyconcludethattheburglarmusthavehadinsideknowledge.
Thisisspeculation.Furthermore,youhaveheardnoevidencefromwhichyoucouldproperlyinferthatthe
defendantknewanythingusefulaboutthepremises.Therefore,pleaseputthisargumenttoonesideand
ignoreit.
220
Footnotes
217
CodeC3.2
218
CodeC3.2(d)and3.12
219
Forbes[2001]1AC473,[2000]UKHL66at20
220
Jamel[1993]CrimLR52
112
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thereis,however,otherevidencewhich,dependingonyourview,providessupportfortheidentifcation.
When the defendant was taken into custody his trainers were removed from him and sent for forensic
examination.Inthetreadsofbothshoesshardsofglasswerefoundwhichwereofthesamerefractiveindex
astheglassremaininginthebrokenwindow.Youheardfromtheexpertthattherefractiveindexisrelatively
commonbutitistypicallywindowglassandnot,forexample,similartoglassusedinthemanufactureof
bottleswhichonemightfndlitteringthestreet.Theburglarytookplacehalfanhourbeforethedefendant
wasarrested.Thedefendantcouldthinkofnooccasionintherecentpastwhenhemighthavetroddenon
glass.ThisevidenceiscapableofaddingsupporttoMrAsevidence,butitisamatterforyoutoassessitand
decidewhetheritdoesornot,and,ifso,whatweightyouattachtoit.
Alibi
Finally,onthesubjectofsupportingevidence,Iwanttosaysomethingaboutthedefendantsevidenceof
alibi.Clearly,ifyouaresurethatMrAsevidenceisreliable,itwouldfollowthatthedefendantsalibiisfalse.
Youmust,ofcourse,considerthealibievidencewithcarebeforeyoureachsuchaconclusion.However,you
willrecallthatthedefendantandhiswitnesseswereaskedquestionsaboutthecircumstancesinwhichthe
alibicametobeadvanced,andtheabilityofthewitnessestogiveevidencethatthedefendantwaswith
themduringcriticalhalfanhourbetween11pmand11.30pm.Therewereseveralinconsistenciesbetween
thewitnesses,ofwhichIwillremindyouinamoment.Oneofthemendedupconcedingthathewasnot
himselfintheareaofthecenotaphatthattimeandhadnoideawherethedefendantwas.PuttingMr
Asevidenceononesideforamoment,ifyouweretoconcludefromtheunsatisfactorywayinwhichthe
evidencewasgiventhatthealibievidencehasbeenconcocted,thatfactisalsocapableofprovidingsupport
forMrAsidentifcation.Butthatwouldbeaconclusionaboutwhichyoushouldbecautious,becauseafalse
alibimaybeputforwardforreasonsotherthanguilt.Oneexampleisadefendantwhothinksitissimplerto
putforwardafalsealibithantoexplainwhathewasreallydoing;anotherisadefendantwhohasagenuine
alibibutthinkshemaynotbebelievedunlesshecanfndotherstosupporthim.Onlyifyoucanexclude
suchpossibilitiesshouldyouregardafalsealibiasanysupportfortheprosecutioncase.
221
Sources
Footnotes
221
Drake[1996]CrimLR109
113
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
222
ThephotographingofsuspectsandtheretentionofphotographsisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,
sections64Aand54A,asamended,andCodeD,paragraphs3.31/33and5.1/11
223
224
AsinDodsonandWilliams[1984]1WLR971,[1984]79CrAppR220.
225
FowdenandWhite[1982]CrimLR588;Kajalav.Noble[1982]75CrAppR149(DC);Grimer[1982]CrLR674;Caldwell[1994]99Cr
AppR73;Blenkinsop[1995]1CrAppR7
226
TaylorvChiefConstableofCheshire[1987]84CrAppR191(DC)
227
ClareandPeach[1995]2CrAppR333.
228
Stockwell[1993]97CrAppR260;Clarke[1995]2CrAppR425;Hookway[1999]CrimLR750
(2) Identifcation from CCTV and Other Visual Images
Introduction

222

TheproliferationofCCTVcamerashasincreasedthenumberofcasesinwhichrelevanteventsarerecorded
and,therefore,attemptsmadebytheprosecutiontoproveidentifcationofsuspectsfromsuchimages.
InAttorneyGeneralsReference(No2of2002)
223
theprosecutioncasewasthatthedefendantwasrecordedin
aCCTVflmofindifferentquality,takingpartinariot.Theprosecutionsoughttoadducetheevidenceoftwo
policeoffcers.Thefrstoffcerspentseveralhoursviewingthefootageand,forthatreason,becameawareof
anindividual,thedefendant,helatersawbychance.Heidentifedthemanintheflmasthedefendantand
theevidencewasadducedwithoutobjection.Thesecondoffcerknewthedefendant.Heviewedthesame
footageincontrolledconditionsandrecognisedthedefendant.Thetrialjudgeinvitedsubmissionsfromthe
partiesonthegroundthatthesecondoffcerhadnoparticularexpertiseandwasinnobetterpositionthan
thejurytomakeanidentifcation.Hedeclinedtoadmittheevidenceand,later,ruledinfavourofadefence
submissionofnocase.TheprosecutionsoughttheopinionoftheCourtofAppealinanapplicationmade
undersection36CriminalJusticeAct1972.TheCourtfoundthatthetrialjudgehadbeeninerror.TheVice-
President,RoseLJ,identifedatleastfourcircumstancesinwhich,subjecttothediscretiontoexcludethe
evidenceundersection78PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,and,subjecttoappropriatedirectionsin
summing-up,thejurycanbeinvitedtoconsiderevidenceofidentifcationfromaphotographicimageofthe
sceneofthecrime:
1. Whenthephotographicimageissuffcientlyclearthejurycancompareitwiththedefendantsittingin
thedock.
224
2. Whenawitnessknowsthedefendantsuffcientlywelltorecognisehimastheoffenderdepictedinthe
photographicimage,hecangiveidentifcationevidence.
225
Thismaybesonotwithstandingtheloss
oftheimage.
226
3. Awitness,suchasapoliceoffcer,whodoesnotknowthedefendant,buthasspentmanyhours
viewingandanalysingphotographicimages,mayacquireaspecialistknowledgeofthematerial.He
cangiveevidenceofhiscomparisonbetweentheimagesofthesceneofthecrimeandareasonably
contemporaryphotographofthedefendantprovidedthatthoseimagesareavailabletothejuryfor
thepurposeoftestingthewitnessevidence.
227
4. Awitness,expertinfacialmappingtechniques,canexpressanopinionbasedonacomparison
betweensceneofcrimeimagesandareasonablycontemporaryphotograph,providedbothimages
aremadeavailabletothejuryforthepurposeoftestingtheexpertsevidence.
228
114
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
229
InFarazAli[2009]CrimLR40,[2008]EWCACrim1522,theCACDdoubtedthattheimagesrelieduponwereofsuffcientquality
toinvitethejurytousetheevidenceoftheirowneyesandrepeatedthatifsuchanexerciseisundertaken,thejurymustbe
givenanexplicitwarningaboutthedangersofmistakenidentifcation.See36-41,perHooperLJ.
Directions
(1) Comparison made by the Jury
InDodsonandWilliamsWatkinsLJexpressedtheviewoftheCourtofAppealasfollows:
Whataretheperilswhichthejuryshouldbetoldtobewareof?.....Wedonotthinktheprovisionbyusofa
formulaorseriesofguidelinesuponwhichadirectionbyajudgeuponthismattershouldalwaysbebased
wouldbehelpful.Evidenceofthiskindisrelativelynovel.Whatisoftheutmostimportancewithregardto
it,itseemstous,isthatthequalityofthephotographs,theextentoftheexposureofthefacialfeaturesof
thepersonphotographed,evidence,ortheabsenceofit,ofachangeinadefendantsappearanceandthe
opportunityajuryhastolookatadefendantinthedockandoverwhatperiodoftimearefactors,among
othermattersofrelevanceinthiscontextinaparticularcase,whichthejurymustreceiveguidanceupon
from the judge when he directs them as to how they should approach the task of resolving this crucial
issue.
Inthepresentcasewedonotdoubtthatthejurywasmadewellawareoftheneedtoexerciseparticular
cautioninthisrespect.
WhatisrequiredisanadaptedTurnbulldirection,includingitswarningoftheriskofmistaken
identifcationbyseveralwitnesses.
Thejuryis,forthispurpose,thewitnessoftheevent.Thesuspectwillbeunknowntothem.
Thequalityoftheopportunityforobservationwilldependupontheclarityandcompletenessofthe
imagewhichtheyareexamining.
229
Theywillnotsufferthedisadvantageofafeetingglimpsesince
theycanstudythesceneofcrimeimageatleisure,butthequalityoftheimagewillnotbeperfect,it
willbetwo-dimensional,anditmayprovideonlyalimitedviewofthesuspect.
ThedefendantsappearancemayhavechangedsincethesuspectsimagewascapturedonCCTV
inwhichcasethejurymustbewarespeculation.Aphotographofthedefendantcontemporaneous
withtheCCTVimagemaydomuchtoremovethisdisadvantage.
Whiletheexerciseofcomparisonwill,inlargemeasure,involvethestudyofsimilarities,theneedto
considertheexistenceofirreconcilabledifferenceswillbejustasimportant.Theexistenceofone
differencemayexcludethedefendantaltogether.
Thejuryshouldberemindedofanyspecifcargumentsaddressedtothemonbehalfofthedefendant.
11S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration Comparison by the jury of photographic images of a suspect at the scene of crime with
the defendant modifed Turnbull direction quality of images signifcance of similarities and any
dissimilarity supporting evidence
YouhaveseentheCCTVflmsandinyourbundleseveralphotographicstillsrecordedbyCCTVcameras
locatedclosetothesceneofthecrime.Therearethreeindividualsdepictedinthosephotographs.Itisagreed
betweentheprosecutionandthedefencethatthepersonwehavelabelled3oneachofthosestillsisthe
complainant.Thetwootherswehavelabelled1and2are,itisalsoagreed,thecomplainantsattackers.
Thepersonlabelled2isunknowntotheprosecution.Theprosecutioncaseisthatthepersonlabelled1is
thedefendant.
Thereisnoidentifyingwitness.Thedefendantwasarrested3daysaftertheincident.Hisphotographwas
takenatthepolicestation.Youhavealsobeenabletoobservethedefendantincourtforthelast2days.You
areinvitedtomakeacomparisonbetweenalltheseimagesandthedefendantinperson,andtoconclude
thattheyareallofoneandthesameman.
Thisisanexerciseinidentifcationinwhichthereisaspecialneedforcaution.Thereasonisthatexperience
tellsusitiseasytobeconvincedbutmistakenabouttheidentifcationofothers.Thisappliestoyouandme
asitdoestoanywitnessmakinganidentifcation.Severalpeoplecanmakethesamemistakenidentifcation
evenofsomeoneknowntothem.Theidentifcationofapersoninthecourseofourdailylivescanbediffcult.
Youmaybeconvincedthatyouhaveseensomeoneyouknowwellinthestreet,orpassinginacar,butit
turnsoutyouweremisledbythesimilarityinappearancebetweentwocompletelydifferentpeople.Here,
youarenotbeingaskedifyourecognisesomeoneyouknow.Youarebeingaskedtomakeacomparison
betweenimagesandthephysicalfeaturesofsomeonewhowasuntilthistrialisastrangertoyou.
The reliability of the comparison will depend, frst, upon the quality of the images on which suspect 1
appears.Theyareallcapturedatnight.Thestreetlightingisquitegoodandtheimagesarereasonably
sharplyfocused.Theyareincolour.Theyarenot,however,asclearaswouldhavebeendaylightviewsofthe
suspectinperson,andtheyare,ofnecessity,two-dimensional.Ontheotherhand,youhavetheadvantage
of stills from two different cameras and views of the suspects face both frontal and in profle. The frst
questionyouneedtoconsideriswhethertheseimagesareofsuffcientqualitytomakeanycomparisonwith
thedefendant.Ifyouarenotsuretheyare,thenyoushouldabandontheexercisealtogether.Iftheyareof
suffcientqualitythenyouhavethefurtheradvantageofbeingabletomakeyourcomparisoninyourown
timeandinasmuchdetailasyouneed.Thisputsyou,inthisrespect,inabetterpositionthanawitness
watchingafastmovingandbriefencounter.
Next,youhaveacontemporaneousphotographofthedefendant,onefrontalandoneinprofleoneach
side.Themainadvantageofacontemporaneousphotographofthedefendantisthatitrecordshisbody
shapeandthelengthofhishair,anddemonstratestheshapeofhismoustacheatoraboutthetimethe
incidenttookplace.
Finally,youhavethedefendantinperson,nowcleanshavenandwearinghishairmuchshorterthanitwas
atthetime,butgivingyoua3-Dviewofthecontoursofhisheadandface.
11o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
WhenaskedquestionsbyhisownadvocatethedefendantacceptedthatthepersonintheCCTVflmbears
astrikingresemblancetohimself.Hedenied,however,thattheyareoneandthesameperson.Youwillneed
toconsiderwhethertherearefeatures,bothofbuildandfacially,commontothesuspectandthedefendant
whicharesuffcientlyunusualincombinationtoremovethepossibilityofcoincidence.Rememberthatyoudo
nothavetheadvantageofalineupofmenofsimilarappearance.Whatyoudohaveistheabilitytosearch
foranyfeaturesofsuspect1whichyoudonotfndinthedefendantandviceversa.Itisjustasimportantto
lookforanyevidenceofdissimilarityasitistoidentifyfeaturescommontoboth.
Inreachingyourdecisionyoudonothavetolookattheimagesinisolationoftheotherevidence.Found
inthedefendantsbedroomwasapairoftrainers.Theyareofarelativelycommondesignbuttheexpert
evidenceisthattheyareidenticalinalldiscerniblerespectstothefootwearwornbysuspect1inthestill
photographstakenatthescene.WhenhewasarrestedthedefendantwaswearingaT-shirtwithadistinctive
logowrittenonthefront.ThesamelogoappearsontheT-shirtwornbysuspect1.If,havingconsideredall
theevidence,youaresurethatthepersonnumbered1inyourstillphotographsisthedefendant,youcan
moveontoconsiderwhetherhecommittedtheoffencecharged.Ifyounotsuretheyareoneandthesame
person,youmustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
Pleaseremember,ifandwhenconsideringwhethertheflmdepictsthedefendantcommittingtheoffence
charged,thatwewerewatchingframesrecordedatintervalsofafewseconds.Wedidnotseethesame
fuidmovementaswewouldwhenwatchingacinemaflmortelevisionprogramme.Itispossiblethata
movementorgestureorexpressionwasnotrecordedduringtheseintervalsandisthereforelosttoyouwhen
evaluatingwhatyoudosee.
117
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
230
Caldwell[1994]99CrAppR73;SeealsoFarazAli[2009]CrimLR40,[2008]EWCACrim1522inwhichtheCACD(1)doubted
thattheimagefromwhichapoliceoffcerpurportedtorecognisethesuspectwasofsuffcientqualitytopermitrecognition
(thefacewaspartiallyobscured)(2)doubtedthathisrecognitionwould,forthisreason,constitutesupportingevidenceof
identifcationintheabsenceofevidencegivenbyanexpert,and(3)repeatedtheneedforanexplicitdirectionwarningofthe
dangersarisingfromthepurportedrecognition,34-35.
231
InSmith(Dean)[2009]1CrAppR36(page521),[2008]EWCACrim1342andChaney[2009]1CrAppR35(page512),[2009]
EWCACrim21theCACDidentifedaneedthattheCodeDproceduralsafeguards,appropriatelyadapted,shouldbefollowed
whenawitnessisaskedtoattemptarecognitionfromasceneofcrimeimage.Thus,thereshouldbeacontemporaneous
recordofthewitnessreactionanditstermswhichwouldenablethejurytomakeameaningfulassessmentofitsreliability.
Furthermore,anexplicitwarningofthedangersofrecognitionevidenceshouldbegiventothejury.
(2) Recognition by a witness
TherequirementsofamodifedTurnbulldirectionwillbesimilartothoserequiredwhenthejurymakes
thejudgmentforthemselves(seealso(1)ComparisonmadebytheJuryabove).
Whentheprosecutionreliesbothupontheevidenceofawitnesswhorecognisesthedefendantandthe
jurysownabilitytocomparethephotographicevidencewiththedefendantinperson,thejurymaybe
directedthattheevidenceandtheirownexaminationcanbemutuallysupportive.Ifso,theyshouldbe
remindedofthedangerthatseveralwitnessescanmakethesamemistake.
230
Illustration recognition by witness of suspect in scene of crime images suspect known to police
witness modifed Turnbull warning advantages and disadvantages jury using their own
judgment supporting evidence
ThepolicerecoveredCCTVflmfromthelocalauthorityrecordedbytwoseparatecameras.Asyouhave
seen, those flms depict an attack by two men on the complainant. You have in your bundle several
photographic stills copied from the flm. There are three individuals depicted in those photographs. It is
agreedbetweentheprosecutionandthedefencethatthepersonwehavelabelled3oneachofthosestills
isthecomplainant.Thetwootherswehavelabelled1and2are,itisalsoagreed,thecomplainants
attackers.Thepersonlabelled2isunknowntotheprosecution.Theprosecutioncaseisthattheperson
labelled1isthedefendant.
Thecomplainantwasunabletoprovideadescriptionofeitherofhisattackersandtherewasnowitnessat
thescenetoassistyou.However,followingtherecoveryoftheflmstheinvestigatingoffcersinvitedthelocal
communitypoliceman,PCA,toviewthemincontrolledconditions.Hewasaskedwhetherhecouldidentify
anyone on the flms. PC A told you that he immediately recognised the victim and the person we have
labelledsuspect1.Hewasunabletoidentifythepersonlabelledsuspect2.PCAsevidenceisthatsuspect
1isthedefendant.
231
Heknewwherethedefendantlivedand,asaresult,thedefendantwasarrested.The
defendantacceptsthatheandPCAliveonthesameestateandthat,fromtimetotime,theyhavespoken
togetherinalocalpublichouse.Thedefendantmaintainsthatalthoughtheyarewellknowntooneanother,
PCAwas,andis,mistakeninhisidentifcationofthedefendantassuspect1.
TheprosecutioncasedependsinlargemeasureuponthecorrectnessofPCAsidentifcationofthedefendant.
There is a special need for caution before convicting upon such evidence. The reason is that experience
showsthatgenuineandconvincingwitnessescanmakemistakesinidentifcation,evenseveralwitnesses
makingthesameidentifcation.WhilethisisnotidentifcationbyPCAofsomeoneunknowntohim,butthe
recognitionofsomeoneheknows,cautionisstillrequiredbecauseoftheknowndangerthatwitnessescan
makehonestmistakesinrecognitionevenoffriendsorfamilymembers.
118
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ThereisoneadvantagewhichPCAhaswhichhewouldnothaveenjoyedhadhejustbeenpresentatthe
sceneoftheassault.Hehasbeenable,atleisure,totesthisfrstimpressionbyviewingtheCCTVflmsover
andoveragain.Hisdisadvantagehasbeenthathehasbeenlimitedtoatwo-dimensionalimagerecording
thesceneatnight.
Youneedtoconsider,frst,thenatureoftheimagesseenbyPCAinordertojudgetheirqualitysince,onlyif
theimagesareofacceptablequalitycouldyouconcludethatitissafetorelyuponhisrecognition.Theyare
allcapturedatnight.Thestreetlightingisquitegoodandtheimagesarereasonablysharplyfocused.They
areincolour.Theyarenot,however,asclearaswouldhavebeendaylightviewsofthesuspectinperson,
andtheyare,ofnecessity,two-dimensional.Ontheotherhand,PCAhadviewsfromtwodifferentcameras
andviewsofthesuspectsfacebothfrontalandinprofle.Thefrstquestionyouneedtoconsideriswhether
theseimagesareofsuffcientqualityforPCAtomakeanyreliablecomparisonwiththedefendant.Ifyou
arenotsuretheyare,thenyoushouldplacenorelianceuponPCAsevidence.Iftheyareofsuffcientquality
thenyouwillneedtoconsiderwhetherPCAsknowledgeofthedefendantsphysicalappearancewasrecent
enoughtomakeareliableidentifcation.
InjudgingthereliabilityofPCAsevidenceyouareabletomakeyourowncomparisoninyourowntimeand
inasmuchdetailasyouneed.Whenaskedquestionsbyhisownadvocatethedefendantacceptedthatthe
personintheCCTVflmbearsastrikingresemblancetohimself.Hedenied,however,thattheyareoneand
thesameperson.Youwillneedtoconsiderwhethertherearefeatures,bothofbuildandfacially,common
tothesuspectandthedefendantwhicharesuffcientlyunusualincombinationtoremovethepossibility
of coincidence. Remember that neither you nor PC A has the advantage of a line up of men of similar
appearance.Whatyoudohavearecontemporaneousphotographsofthedefendant,takenonhisarrest,
andtheabilitytosearchforanyfeaturesofsuspect1whichyoudonotfndinthedefendantandviceversa.
Itisjustasimportanttolookforanyevidenceofdissimilarityasitistoidentifyfeaturescommontoboth.
YouareentitledtotreatPCAsevidenceandyourownobservation,ifyouagreewithhim,assupportforeach
otherbut,beforedoingthat,pleasebearinmindthedanger,towhichIhavealreadyreferred,thatseveral
peoplecanmakethesamemistakenidentifcation.OnlyifyouaresurethatPCAhascorrectlyidentifedthe
defendantassuspect1couldyouthenproceedtoconsiderwhetherhecommittedtheoffencecharged.If
youarenotsure,youmustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
Pleaseremember,ifandwhenconsideringwhethertheflmdepictsthedefendantcommittingtheoffence
charged,thatwewerewatchingframesrecordedatintervalsofafewseconds.Wedidnotseethesame
fuidmovementaswewouldwhenwatchingacinemaflmortelevisionprogramme.Itispossiblethata
movementorgestureorexpressionwasnotrecordedduringtheseintervalsandisthereforelosttoyouwhen
evaluatingwhatyoudosee.
11
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
232
[1999]2CrAppR333
233
LordTaylorCJatpage338said:P.C.Fitzpatrickhadacquiredtheknowledgebylengthyandstudiousapplicationtomaterial
whichwasitselfadmissibleevidence.Toaffordthejurythetimeandfacilitiestoconductthesameresearchwouldbeutterly
impracticable.Accordingly,itwasinourjudgmentlegitimatetoallowtheoffcertoassistthejurybypointingtowhatheasserted
washappeninginthecrowdedscenesontheflm.Hewasopentocross-examination,andthejury,afterproperdirectionand
warnings,werefreeeithertoacceptorrejecthisassertions.
AstotheidentifcationbyP.C.Fitzpatrickofindividualactorsontheflm,whichwasMrGreensprincipalgroundofcomplaint,
weagreewiththeNewZealandCourtofAppeal[Howe[1982]1NZLR618]thatsuchidentifcationswerenomoresecondary
evidencethananyoralidentifcationmadefromaphotograph.True,P.C.Fitzpatrickdidnotknoweitheroftheappellants
beforethedayofthematch.However,heandhiscolleaguehadtakenhighqualitycolourflmandstillphotographsofWest
BromwichfansincludingtheappellantsarrivingattheStadium,sittinginitandleavingit.Therewasnoissuethattheappellants
wereclearlyshownonthecolourflmandphotographs.Byrepeatedstudyofthoselikenesses,P.C.Fitzpatrickwaswellqualifed
tosay:IknowwhatAlookslike,indeedwhathelookedlikeandworeontheday,andIcanidentifyhimontheblackandwhite
videoflm.
(3) Comparison by a witness with special knowledge of scene of crime images
InClareandPeach
232
policeoffcershadrecordedgoodquality(colour)flmoffootballsupportersmakingtheir
waytoamatch.Afterthematchtherewasaviolentconfrontationbetweentwogroupsofsupportersoutside
licensedpremises,recorded(inblackandwhite)byCCTVcameras.PCFitzpatrickstudiedthepre-match
recordingsandthelesserqualityCCTVflmandformedanopinionastowhichdefendanthadbeenengaged
inwhichactsofviolence.Hewaspermittedbythetrialjudgetogiveevidenceexplainingtothejuryhowhe
hadreachedhisconclusions.TheCourtofAppealapprovedhisdecision.
233
Theevidencewasadmissiblefor
twopurposes,frst,toenablethejurytomaketheirowncomparisonbetweenthecolourandblackandwhite
photographsand,second,asdirectevidenceofidentifcation.ThetrialjudgegaveandtheCourtofAppeal
approved,unfortunatelywithoutquotingit,hismodifedTurnbulldirection.
ForanappropriatelymodifedTurnbulldirectionseealso(1)ComparisonmadebytheJuryabove.
Illustration comparison by witness with special knowledge result of witness research now
available to the jury modifed Turnbull direction advantages and disadvantages
FollowingthisviolentincidentthepolicerecoveredfromthelocalauthoritytwoCCTVflms.Itwasdiscovered
thatmostoftheincident,butnotquiteallofit,wascapturedontheseflms.Thetechnologyunitprepared
acompositeflmwhichyouhaveseen.Thequalityisadmittedlynotthebestanditisrecordedinblackand
white.Secondly,offcersrecoveredfromlicensedpremisesinthetowncentrefurtherCCTVflms.Theywere
ofgoodquality,recordedincolour.Youhaveinyourbundlesstillphotographstakenfromeachflm.Several
individualswereshowninthoselicensedpremisesshortlybeforetheviolenceeruptedoutside.DCAsetabout
studyingbothsetsofflms.Hispurposewastwofold.First,heendeavouredtoseparateouttheindividual
confrontationswhicharerecordedonthetwoblackandwhiteflms.Second,hesoughttoascertainwhether
anyofthoseindividualsshowninthecolourflmtookpartintheviolencewhichcouldbeseenintheblack
andwhiteflmand,ifso,toidentifythem.DCAtoldyouthathehadspentupwardsoftwohundredhours
viewingtheseflmsandtakingstillcopies.
DCAhasexplainedhowheidentifedD1andD2drinkingintheXwinebarbeforemovingquicklytowards
theexitmomentsbeforetheviolencebegan.Heaskedyoutonoteboththeirfeaturesandtheirclothing.
He then drew to your attention individuals depicted in the black and white flms which DC A says are,
respectively,D1andD2.Hehasidentifedthemtakingpartintwoseparateattacksonyouthsoutside,then
joiningtogethertocarryoutajointattackonathird.
120
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
D1andD2havemadeformaladmissionsthattheyareindeedtobeseeninthecolourflm.Wehavemarked
themas1and2onourcopiesofthestillstakenfromthecolourflm.However,theydenythattheyare
alsotobeseentakingpartintheviolenceoutside.TheircaseisthatDCAismistakeninattributingtothem
theactionsofthesuspectswehavemarkedas1and2intheblackandwhitestills.Theysaytheyarenot
tobeseenintheblackandwhiteflmbecausetheyareontheperipherywatching,buttakingnopartin,the
violence.
TheprosecutioncasedependsalmostentirelyuponthecorrectnessofDCAsidentifcationofD1andD2in
theblackandwhiteflm.DCAwasnotanidentifyingwitnessinthesensethathewaspresentattheincident
andtried,later,tomakeanidentifcationofthesuspectsfrommemory.Hisabilitytomakeanidentifcation
dependsentirelyuponhisstudyofthetwoflms.Hehas,intheprocess,savedyouthetroubleofcarryingout
anexaminationlastingovertwohundredhours.However,theendresultisthatyouarejustasabletoreach
aconclusionaboutthecriticalfewmomentsrecordedintheblackandwhiteflmaswasDCA.DCAdidnot
knoweitherD1orD2beforetheywerearrestedandhadnospecialexpertiseintheanalysisofflm.Ineffect
hehaspassedonhisexperienceofextensiveviewingtoyou,andyouarenowinapositiontoassesswhether
hehasmadeacorrectidentifcationofsuspects1and2.
Thereisaspecialneedforcautionbeforeconvictingonthisevidenceofidentifcation,eitherDCAsanalysisor
yourown.Thereasonisthatexperiencetellsusitiseasytobeconvincedbutmistakenabouttheidentifcation
ofothers.Thisappliestoyouandmeasitdoestoanywitnessmakinganidentifcation.Severalpeoplecan
makethesamemistakenidentifcationevenofsomeoneknowntothem.Theidentifcationofapersoninthe
courseofourdailylivescanbediffcult.Youmaybeconvincedthatyouhaveseensomeoneyouknowwellin
thestreet,orpassinginacar,butitturnsoutyouweremisledbythesimilarityinappearancebetweentwo
completelydifferentpeople.Here,youarenotbeingaskedifyourecognisesomeoneyouknow.Youarebeing
asked,withDCAsassistance,tomakeacomparisonbetweenimagesandthepersonofsomeonewhowas
untilthistrialastrangertoyou.
Thereliabilityofthecomparisonwilldepend,frst,uponthequalityoftheimagesonwhichsuspects1and
2appear.Theyareallcapturedatnight.Thestreetlightingisquitegoodandtheimagesarereasonably
focused.Theyare,however,inblackandwhitewhiletheflmwithwhichyouareinvitedtocomparethemis
incolourandisofmuchbetterquality.Bothflmsareofcourseonlytwo-dimensional.Thefrstquestionyou
needtoconsideriswhethertheseblackandwhiteimagesareofsuffcientqualitytomakeanycomparison
withadefendantasdepictedinthecolourflm.Ifyouarenotsuretheyare,thenyoushouldabandonthe
exercisealtogether.Iftheyareofsuffcientqualitythenyouhavethefurtheradvantageofbeingableto
makeyourcomparisoninyourowntimeandinasmuchdetailasyouneed.Thisputsyou,inthisrespect,in
abetterpositionthanawitnesswatchingafastmovingandbriefencounter.
IwillnowremindyouoftheevidenceofDCAasitconcernedD1.Whatyouarebeingaskedtonotefrom
thecolourflmandstillsarethefollowingfeaturesofD1sappearance,includinghisclothing......Pleaseturn,
next, to the black and white stills numbered 1-4. You are invited to pay close attention to the following
featuresofsuspect1andhisclothing....
121
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Second,letuscarryoutthesameexerciseinrelationtoD2andtheblackandwhitestillsnumbered5-8......
Ineachcaseyouwillneedtoconsiderwhethertherearefeatures,bothofbuildandfacially,commonto
thesuspectandthedefendantwhicharesuffcientlyunusualincombinationtoremovethepossibilityof
coincidence.Rememberthatyoudonothavetheadvantageofalineupofmenofsimilarappearance.What
youdohaveistheabilitytosearchforanyfeaturesofthesuspectwhichyoudonotfndinthedefendant.It
isjustasimportanttolookforanyevidenceofdissimilarityasitistoidentifyfeaturescommontoboth.
Itissubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantsthattheexerciseyouarebeingaskedtoperformiscapableof
creatinganinjustice.Itispointedoutthatthecompositeblackandwhiteflmisaneditedversionofthe
wholeincident.Youcannot,itissaid,receivethefullpicture.Theremaybeotherpeoplewhotookpartinthis
violencewhowereofsimilarappearancetothedefendantsandworesimilarclothing.Thisisasubmissionto
whichyoushouldgivecloseattentionwhenyouarereviewingtheflm.DCAtoldyouhehadviewedallthe
flmavailablefrombothCCTVcamerasandsawnootherindividualswiththesecombinationsoffeatures.
Fullcopiesofthoseflmshadbeenmadeavailabletothedefence.DCAwasnotaskedonbehalfofeither
defendanttoviewanimageofanyotherpersonwhomighthavebeenmistakenforeitherofthem.
If,havingexercisedthecautionIhaveadvised,youaresurethatadefendanthasbeencorrectlyidentifedby
DCAyoushouldproceedtoconsiderwhetherthatdefendantisguiltyoftheoffencecharged.Ifyouarenot
sure,thatadefendanthasbeenaccuratelyidentifed,thenyoumustfndhimnotguilty.Pleaseremember,
ifandwhenconsideringwhethertheflmdepictsthedefendantcommittingtheoffencecharged,thatwe
werewatchingframesrecordedatintervalsofafewseconds.Wedidnotseethesamefuidmovementas
wewouldwhenwatchingacinemaflmortelevisionprogramme.Itispossiblethatamovementorgesture
orexpressionwasnotrecordedduringtheseintervalsandisthereforelosttoyouwhenevaluatingwhatyou
see.
122
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
234
Stockwell[1993]97CrAppR260
235
Clarke[1995]2CrAppR425
236
Hookway[1999]CrimLR750
237
Gray[2003]EWCACrim1001
238
Supra
239
[2009]EWCACrim1876
(4) Identifcation by facial mapping
Facialmappingisadevelopingtechniqueandexpertise.Initssimplestformitamountstolittlemorethanthe
comparisonofoneimagewithanother.
234
Computersoftwareandphotographictechnologyhavecreated
moreadvancedtechniqueswhichenabletwoseparateimagestobeenhancedandalignedinorderthebetter
tomakethecomparison.
235
Thecomparisonwillinvolvestudyoftheproportionsoftheface,thejuxtaposition
offeaturesofthefaceanditsshape.
236
Theexpertwillbeabletodemonstratesimilaritiesbetweentheadmittedcontrolimageofthedefendantand
thedisputedcrimescenephotographofthesuspect,togetherwiththeabsenceofmaterialdifferences.He
cannot,however,expressanopinionupontheprobabilitythatthesuspectimageisthedefendantratherthan
someoneelse,becausethereexistsnodatabaseagainstwhichthematchprobabilitycanbemeasured.Inthe
absenceofsuchstatisticalaidstheexpertislimitedtoexpressinganopinionbasedonhisexperience.The
valueofsuchevidencemaybeextremelylimited.Inanyeventthequalityoftheevidencemaybelimitedby
theexperienceandscientifcobjectivityoftheexpert.
237
Thequestionwhether,intheabsenceofarelevantdatabase,afacialmappingexpertshouldbepermittedto
expresshisopinionupontheevidentialvalueofhiscomparisonbetweentheimageandthedefendantsface
wasconsidered(seedoubtsexpressedobiterinGray
238
)inAtkins
239
.TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatsuch
evidencewaspermissibleprovidedtheexperienceandexpertiseoftheexpertjustifedtheuseofhisown
relativetermswhenseekingtointerprethisresultsforthejury.Followingathoroughreviewoftherelevant
casesHughesLJconcludedasfollows:
29. The absence of a statistical database is something which will undoubtedly be exposed in cross-
examination.Thewitnessmayexpecttobeaskedtoexplainhow,ifno-oneknowhowoftenearsornoses
oftheshaperelieduponappearinthepopulationatlarge,itispossibletosayanythingatallaboutthe
signifcanceofthematch;hisanswersmaybesatisfactoryorunsatisfactorybutwillbetheretobeevaluated
bythejury,whichwillhavebeenremindedbythejudgethatanyexpertsexpressionofopinionisthatand
nomoreanddoesnotmeanthatheisnecessarilyright.Similarly,theexpertmaybeexpectedtobetested
upontheextenttowhichhehasnotonlylookedforsimilarities,buthasactivelysoughtoutdissimilarities.
Thosearebutthesimplestofthequestionswhichplainlyneedtobeaskedofanyoneofferingevidenceof
thiskind.Crossexaminationwillalsobeinformedbythefullestdisclosureofhismethod,generally,andof
hisworkingnotesintheparticularcasebeingtried.
30. Inthepresentcase,thejudgestreatmentofthisevidenceinsumminguptothejuryisagreedtohave
beenmeticulousandentirelyfairifthedisputedexpressionofopinionwasadmissible.Aswellassettingoutin
detailtheextentandlimitationsoftheevidenceofMrNeave,hemadeitwhollyclearthatit(i)wasincapable
ofconstitutingpositiveidentifcation,whilstitcouldpositivelyexclude,(ii)involvednouniqueidentifying
featureinthiscase,(iii)wasnotbaseduponanydatabasewhichcouldgiveanystatisticalfoundationfor
his expression of opinion and (iv) was therefore, as to opinion of signifcance, informed by experience
butentirelysubjective.Healsotoldthejuryplainlythatthedecisionwhethertoacceptexpertevidence

123
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
wasforitanditalone.Withoutattemptingtoordainaformofsummingupwhichcanfteverycase,we
observethatinsomeinstancesitmayhelpthejuryforthejudgetoexplainthattheformsofexpressionare
labelsappliedbythewitnesstohisopinionofthesignifcanceofhisfndingsanddifferentexpertsmaynot
attachthesamelabeltothesamedegreeofcomparability.

31. Weconcludethatwhereaphotographiccomparisonexpertgivesevidence,properlybaseduponstudy
andexperience,ofsimilaritiesand/ordissimilaritiesbetweenaquestionedphotographandaknownperson
(including a defendant) the expert is not disabled either by authority or principle from expressing his
conclusionastothesignifcanceofhisfndings,andthathemaydosobyuseofconventionalexpressions,
arrangedinahierarchy,suchasthoseusedbythewitnessinthiscaseandsetoutinparagraph8above[no
support,limitedsupport,moderatesupport,support,strongsupport,powerfulsupport].Wethinkitpreferable
thattheexpressionsshouldnotbeallocatednumbers,astheywereintheboxesusedinthewrittenreportin
thiscase,lestthatrunanysmallriskofleadingthejurytothinkthattheyrepresentanestablishednumerical,
thatistosaymeasurable,scale.Theexpressionsoughttoremainsimplywhattheyare,namelyformsof
wordsused.Theyneedtobeinanascendingorderiftheyaretomeananythingatall,andifarelatively
frmopinionistobecontrastedwithonewhichisnotsofrm.Theyare,however,expressionsofsubjective
opinion,andthismustbemadecrystalcleartothejurychargedwithevaluatingthem.
Whilethereisnoreasoninprinciplewhythejuryshouldnotconvictupontheunsupportedevidenceofa
facialmappingexpert(sincethejurycanreachitsownassessmentofthematch),aspecifcwarningdrawing
attentiontotheabsenceofsuchsupportisimportant.Ifsupportexistsitshouldbeidentifed.
Illustration facial mapping expert extent of experience methodology experts conclusion that
images of the same man modifed Turnbull direction challenge to conclusion absence of database
from which to reach a statistical estimate of probability of a match jurys assessment of the evidence
supporting evidence
The prosecution case depends largely, but not exclusively, upon the evidence of Dr A. Dr As academic
achievementswereinbiologicalscience.Shehassincetrainedasaforensicscientistandforthelast10years
herareaofexpertisehasbeenfacialmapping.ShehasprovidedreportstothepoliceandCrownProsecution
Serviceinabout100casesandhasgivenevidenceinpersoninabout40ofthosecases.DrAtoldyouthat
facialmappingevidencecantakedifferentforms.Inthiscasewebeganwiththepreparationofimagesof
thedefendanttakenincontrolledcircumstanceswithadigitalcameraatthepolicestation.Second,DrAwas
providedwiththesecurityCCTVflmrecoveredfromthePostOffce.DrAexplainedthatherfrsttaskwas
toprepareviewsofthesuspectfromthePostOffceflmwhichmostnearlymatchedthecontrolsamplefor
sizeandview.Usingdigitalphotographictechnologyandsophisticatedcomputersoftware,DrAwasableto
preparetwoviewsfromeachsetofphotographs,oneafrontalviewofthefaceandtheotheraleftprofle.
Shethensetaboutpreparingtheimagesinaformmostadvantageousformakingacomparison.Thiswas
againachievedwithcomputersoftwarewhichwasabletostorethetwoimagestobecomparedoneontop
oftheother.ByseparatingtheimageswithahorizontallineonthescreenDrAwasabletoexposehalfof
eachimage,thecontrolimageaboveandthePostOffceimagebelowtheline.Shethencausedthelineto
moveupthescreenwhichexposedmoreofthePostOffceimageandlessofthecontrolimage.Thenshedid
thesameintheoppositedirection,exposingmoreofthecontrolimageandlessofthePostOffceimage.Dr
Ademonstratedthesameeffectwiththeverticalline,whichmovedfromsidetosideacrosstheface.These
exerciseswerecarriedoutbothwiththefrontalandprofleviews.
124
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
DrAexplainedthatherpurposewastodemonstratethecontinuityoffeaturesoftheface.Therewasno
pointatwhichtheregularityoffeatureswasbrokenbyanynoticeablediscontinuitybetweenoneimageand
theother.Shecarriedoutmeasurementsusingagridsuperimposedoneachoftheimages.Shemeasured
thedistancebetweeneachofthemainfeaturesofthefaceanditspositioninrelationtotheothers.She
foundthateachimagematcheditscounterpartbothfrontalandinprofle.Shetoldyouthatinheropinion
there was suffcient detail to make a comparison of shape between the ears, nose, eyes and mouth in
eachimage.Againshefound,withinthelimitsofqualityofthePostOffceimages,thattheymatchedthe
controlimage.DrAwasaskedwhatconclusionshedrew.Shetoldyouthatthematchwassoexactthatshe
concludedbothsetsofimageswereofthesameman.
Thisisevidenceofidentifcationusingscientifctechniques.ThedefendantwasunknowntoDrA.Sheisnot,
therefore,purportingtorecognisesomeonesheknew,norhasshe,havingobservedtherobbery,attempted
toidentifytherobberatalineupofseveralindividuals.Nevertheless,itisnecessaryforyouexercisespecial
cautionbeforeconvictingthedefendantuponDrAsopinion.Thereasonisthatexperiencetellsusthattwo
peoplecanhaveasurprisinglysimilarappearance.DrAhastheadvantageofscientifcstudyofimages
rather than observation of a suspect in diffcult circumstances, but that does not remove the need for
caution.
Dr A was permitted to give evidence of her opinion because she is expert in scientifc techniques with
whichwearenotfamiliar.However,thisisnotatrialbyexpert.YoumustjudgeDrAsevidenceasyou
wouldanyotherwitness,anddecidewhetheryouaresuresheisright.Thatinvolvesaconsiderationofher
methodologyandofherconclusions.MrBgaveevidenceonbehalfofthedefendant.Hetooisanexpert
infacialmappingtechniques.HevisitedthelaboratorywhereDrAcarriedoutherworkforthepurposeof
reviewingit.Heacceptedthatthepreparationofimagesforcomparisonwasproperlyconductedandhe
didnotdisputethatthesimilaritiesidentifedbyDrAexisted.WhathedidchallengewasDrAsabilityto
expresstheopinionthattheseparateimageswereofthesameman.DrAacknowledgedthat:(i)Thereis
nodatabaseofphysicalfeaturesagainstwhichthechancesoftwodifferentpeoplehavingthesamefacial
characteristicscanbemeasured.DrAcannot,therefore,tellyouwhatisthestatisticalchancethatthese
imagesmaybefromtwodifferentpeople(ii)ThereisnofeatureinthePostOffceimagesandthecontrol
image of the defendant which can be described as unique. When Dr A expresses her opinion that the
imagesareofthesamemansheisrelyingsolelyuponherexperienceinthisareawhichislimitedto100or
soearliercases;beingheropinionitisentirelysubjective.
WhileyouareentitledtogiveweighttoDrAsopinion,ifyouconcludethatitisrighttodoso,youshould
notconcludethatshehasscientifcallyexcludedthepossibilitythatthefaceinthePostOffceimagesisthat
ofthedefendantandno-oneelse.Heropinionplainlycannothavethateffect.ItisforyoutoevaluateDr
Asevidence.Asshepointedout,andMrBaccepted,heropinionisbasedonlyuponscientifcassessmentof
measurementandshape,whileyouhavetheabilitytomakeanassessmentofthesimilarityinoverallfacial
appearance.Inthiscontext,withinthelimitationsimposedbythePostOffceimage,neitherDrAnorMr
Bwereabletofndanyfeaturewhichwasdifferentfromthedefendantsface.Whenyoumakeyourown
comparison,pleaserememberthewarningIhavegiventhatcautionisrequired.Mistakescanbemade
evenaboutthosewhosefacesarefamiliartous.
12S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
IfyouhaveanyrationaldoubtaboutthecorrectnessofDrAsopinion,baseduponaconsiderationofthe
expertevidenceanduponyourownassessmentoftheseimagesthenyoumustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
However,youarenotexpectedtomakethatjudgmentinisolationfromalltheotherevidenceinthecase.I
willremindyouinamomentoftheevidencewhichiscapableofsupportingDrAsconclusionalthough,asI
shallemphasise,thejudgmentwhetheritdoesprovidesupportisforyoutomake.
Sources
Archbold14-45/51;BlackstoneF18.2
12o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
240
Thetakingoffngerprintsandothernon-intimateskinsamplesisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,section
63,andCodeDparagraphs6.5/6
241
Castleton[1910]3CrAppR74(appealNovember1909),inwhichtheCourtofCriminalAppealrefusedleavetoappealagainst
convictionwhenthesoleevidenceofidentifcationwasamatch,provedbyanexpertfngerprintexaminer,betweenaprintleft
onacandleatthesceneandthedefendantsimpressions
242
Transcript30April1999,163JP561
(3) Identifcation by fnger and other prints
Finger and Palm Prints
240
Amatchbyanexpertoffngerprintimpressionsleftatthesceneofcrimeandthedefendantsfngerprint
impressionshavebeenadmissibleinevidenceforatleastonehundredyears.
241
InBuckley
242
theVice-
President,RoseLJ,describedthehistoryoffngerprintstandardsandgaveguidanceoncurrentminimum
requirements:
It has long been known that fngerprint patterns vary from person to person and that such
patternsareuniqueandunchangingthroughoutlife.Asearlyas1910,inRvCastleton3CrAppR
74,aconvictionwasupheldwhichdependedsolelyonidentifcationbyfngerprints.Atthattime
therewerenosetcriteriaorstandards.But,gradually,anumericalstandardevolvedanditbecame
acceptedthatonce12similarridgecharacteristicscouldbeidentifed,amatchwasprovedbeyond
alldoubt.
In1924,thestandardwasalteredbyNewScotlandYard,butnotbyallotherpoliceforces,soas
torequire16similarridgecharacteristics.Thatalterationwasmadebecause,in1912,apaperhad
beenpublishedinFrancebyamancalledAlphonseBertillon.Itwasonthebasisofhispaperthat
the16similarridgecharacteristicsstandardwasadopted.However,inrecenttimes,theoriginals
oftheprintsusedbyBertillonhavebeenexaminedandrevealedconclusivelytobeforgeries.Itis
thereforeapparentthatthe16pointstandardwasadoptedonafalsebasis.
Meanwhile,in1953,therewasameetingbetweenthethenDeputyDirectorofPublicProsecutions,
offcialsfromtheHomeOffceandoffcersfromseveralpoliceforces,withaviewtoagreeingona
commonapproach.Asaresult,theNationalFingerprintStandardwascreated,whichrequired16
separatesimilarridgecharacteristics.
It is apparent that the committee were not seeking to identify the minimum number of ridge
characteristicswhichwouldleadtoaconclusivematch,butwhattheywereseekingtodowasto
setastandardwhichwassohighthatnoonewouldseektochallengetheevidenceandthereby,to
raisefngerprintevidencetoapointofuniquereliability.
Atthesametime,aNationalConferenceofFingerprintExpertswasestablishedtomonitorthe
application of the standard. Shortly afterwards, there was an amendment to the standard, to
providethat,whereatanyscenetherewasonesetofmarksfromwhich16ridgecharacteristics
couldbeidentifed,anyothermarkatthesamescenecouldbematchediftenridgecharacteristics
wereidentifed.Logicalorotherwise,thatsystemoperatedformanyyears.

During the passage of time, there have, of course, in this area, as in the realms of much other
expertevidence,beendevelopmentsinknowledgeandexpertise.Ofcourse,inpractice,many
marksleftatthesceneofacrimearenotbyanymeansperfect;theymaybeonlypartialprints;
127
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
theymaybesmudgedorsmearedorcontaminated.However,aconsensusdevelopedbetween
experts that considerably fewer than 16 ridge characteristics would establish a match beyond
any doubt. Some experts suggested that eight would provide a complete safeguard. Others
maintainedthatthereshouldbenonumericalstandardatall.Wearetold,andaccept,thatother
countriesadmitidentifcationsof12,10,oreightsimilarridgecharacteristicsand,insomeother
countries,thenumericalsystemhasbeenabandonedaltogether.
In 1983, there was a conference which recognised that all fngerprint experts accepted that a
fngerprintidentifcationiscertainwithlessthanthecurrentstandardof16pointsofagreement.
Itwasalsorecognisedthatallexpertsagreedthatthereshouldbeanationallyacceptedstandard,
whichshouldbeadheredtoinallbutthemostexceptionalcases.TheConferencerecognisedthat
therewouldberareoccasionswhereanidentifcationfellbelowthestandard,buttheprintwasof
suchcrucialimportanceinthecasethattheevidenceaboutitshouldbeplacedbeforetheCourt.
Thereforetheconferenceadvisedthat,insuchextremelyrarecases,theevidenceofcomparison
shouldbegivenonlybyanexpertoflongexperienceandhighstanding.
It was this approach which led to the trial judge in R v Charles (unreported, Court of Appeal
(Criminal Division) transcript of 17th December 1998) admitting evidence of 12 similar ridge
characteristics.Thatwasadecision,intheexerciseofhisdiscretion,whichwasupheldintheface
ofchallengeinthisCourt.InthecourseofgivingthejudgmentoftheCourtonthatoccasion,the
LordChiefJustice,LordBinghamofCornhill,saidthisatpage9Eofthetranscript,byreferenceto
theevidenceoffactualmatchwiththedefendantsprint:
Itwasnotsuggestedthatthereweredifferencesbetweenthetwoprintsbeingcompared;norwasit
suggestedthatthesimilaritiesonwhichherelieddidnotexist.Itwasnot,inotherwords,anypartofthe
appellantscasethattheprintsdidnotmatch.Norwasanycontradictoryevidenceofanykindadduced
atthetrial.TheappellantdidnotcallafngerprintexpertwhodisagreedwithanythingthatMrPowell
said.
ThelearnedLordChiefJusticewentontorefertotheexpertsopinionevidencethattherelevant
printwasmadebythedefendant.Theexpert:
...relied on the comparison between them, on the similarities and absence of dissimilarities, on his
professionalexperienceduringalongcareer,andonhisexpertknowledgeoftheexperienceofother
expertsasreportedintheliterature.Heconcludedthatthepossibilityofthedisputedprintandthecontrol
printsbeingmadebydifferentpeoplecouldinhisjudgmentbeeffectivelyruledout.
In cross examination...he agreed that he was expressing a professional opinion and not a scientifc
conclusion.
It is further to be noted that in R v Giles, (unreported, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
transcript,dated13thFebruary1988)adifferentlyconstituteddivisionofthisCourtoverwhich
OttonLJpresided,refusedarenewedapplicationforleavetoappealagainstconviction.Thetrial
judgesexerciseofdiscretion,inadmittingevidenceofoneprintofwhichtherewere14similar
characteristicsandofonewithonlyeightsimilarcharacteristics,wasnotregardedasbeingthe
subjectofeffectivechallenge.
Itispertinentagainstthatbackgroundtorefertocurrentdevelopmentssofarasfngerprintexperts
areconcerned.Itwasrecognisedthat,inviewofthe1983concessionstowhichwehavereferred,
128
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
243
On11May2001theChiefConstablesCouncilendorsedtherecommendationtoimplementthechangetoevidentialstandard
forfngerprints.ARationale(AppendixA)wasissuedtogetherwithastatementofprocess(AppendixB)andbriefngand
guidancenotesforfngerprintexpertspreparedbytheProjectBoardtowhichRoseLJreferredinhisjudgment.
the1953standardwaslogicallyindefensible.In1988,theHomeOffceandACPO(TheAssociation
ofChiefPoliceOffcers)commissionedastudybyDrsEvettandWilliamsintofngerprintstandards.
Theyrecommendedthattherewasnoscientifc,logicalorstatisticalbasisfortheretentionofany
numericalstandard,letaloneonethatrequiredasmanyas16pointsofsimilarity.
Inconsequence,ACPOsetupaseriesofcommitteestoconsiderregularisingthepositionandto
ensurethat,iffngerprintidentifcationsbasedonlessthan16pointsweretobereliedupon,there
wouldbeclearproceduresandprotocolsinplacetoestablishanationwidesystemforthetraining
ofexpertstoanappropriatelevelofcompetence,establishmentofmanagementproceduresfor
thesupervision,recordingandmonitoringoftheirworkandtheintroductionofanindependent
andexternalaudittoensurethequalityoftheworkdone.In1994anACPOreportproducedunder
thechairmanshipoftheDeputyChiefConstableofThamesValleyPolicerecommendedchanging
toanonnumericalsystemandtheChiefConstablesCouncilendorsedthatrecommendationin
1996.FurtherdiscussionsfollowedbetweentheheadsofalltheFingerprintBureauinthiscountry
andACPO.Inconsequence,aFingerprintEvidenceProjectBoardwasestablishedwithaviewto
studyingexhaustivelythesystemsneededbeforemovingnationallytoanonnumericalsystem.
The frst report of that body was presented on 25th March 1998 and recommended that the
nationalstandardbechangedentirelytoanonnumericalsystem:atargetdateofApril2000was
hopedfor,bywhichthenecessaryprotocolsandprocedureswouldbeinplace.
243
Ifandwhen
thatoccurs,itmaybethatfngerprintexpertswillbeabletogivetheiropinionsunfetteredbyany
arbitrarynumericalthresholds.Thecourtswillthenbeabletodrawsuchconclusionsastheythink
ftfromtheevidenceoffngerprintexperts.
Itistobenotedthatnoneofthisexcellentworkbythepoliceandbyfngerprintexpertscanbe
regardedaseitherusurpingthefunctionofatrialjudgeindeterminingadmissibilityorchanging
thelawastotheadmissibilityofevidence.
That said, we turn to the legal position as it seems to us. Fingerprint evidence, like any other
evidence,isadmissibleasamatteroflawifittendstoprovetheguiltoftheaccused.Itmayso
tend,evenifthereareonlyafewsimilarridgecharacteristicsbutitmay,insuchacase,havelittle
weight.Itmaybeexcludedintheexerciseofjudicialdiscretion,ifitsprejudicialeffectoutweighs
itsprobativevalue.Whentheprosecutionseektorelyonfngerprintevidence,itwillusuallybe
necessary to consider two questions: the frst, a question of fact, is whether the control print
fromtheaccusedhasridgecharacteristics,andifsohowmany,similartothoseoftheprintonthe
itemreliedon.Thesecond,aquestionofexpertopinion,iswhethertheprintontheitemrelied
onwasmadebytheaccused.Thisopinionwillusuallybebasedonthenumberofsimilarridge
characteristicsinthecontextofotherfndingsmadeoncomparisonofthetwoprints.
Thatisasmatterspresentlystand.Itmaybethatinthefuture,whensuffcientnewprotocolshave
beenestablishedtomaintaintheintegrityoffngerprintevidence,itwillbeproperlyreceivableas
amatterofdiscretion,withoutreferencetoanyparticularnumberofsimilarridgecharacteristics.
But,inthepresentstateofknowledgeofandexpertiseinrelationtofngerprints,weventureto
profferthefollowingguidance,whichwehopewillbeofassistancetojudgesandtothoseinvolved
incriminalprosecutions.
12
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
If there are fewer than eight similar ridge characteristics, it is highly unlikely that a judge will
exercise his discretion to admit such evidence and, save in wholly exceptional circumstances,
the prosecution should not seek to adduce such evidence. If there are eight or more similar
ridge characteristics, a judge may or may not exercise his or her discretion in favour of
admitting the evidence. How the discretion is exercised will depend on all the circumstances
of the case, including in particular:
(i) the experience and expertise of the witness;
(ii) the number of similar ridge characteristics;
(iii) whether there are dissimilar characteristics;
(iv) the size of the print relied on, in that the same number of similar ridge characteristics
may be more compelling in a fragment of print than in an entire print; and
(v) the quality and clarity of the print on the item relied on, which may involve, for
example, consideration of possible injury to the person who left the print, as well as
factors such as smearing or contamination.
In every case where fngerprint evidence is admitted, it will generally be necessary, as in
relation to all expert evidence, for the judge to warn the jury that it is evidence of opinion
only, that the experts opinion is not conclusive and that it is for the jury to determine
whether guilt is proved in the light of all the evidence. [boldemphasisadded]
SincethisadvicewasgiventhepolicefngerprintbureauxinEnglandandWaleshaveadoptedanon-
numericalstandard.
244
ItissuggestedthattheguidanceprovidedinBuckleyremainsvalidbutadmissibilitywill
dependprimarilyonthequalityoftheopinionandthematchingcharacteristicswhichsupportit.
Oncetheevidenceisadmitted,thejurysconclusionuponthecogencyoftheevidenceofmatchwill
alsodependonthefactorslistedbytheVice-President.
Occasionally,fngerprintexpertsdisagreeontheidentifcationofadissimilarcharacteristicbetween
thetwosamples.Ifthereissuchadisagreement,carefuldirectionswillberequiredbecause,ifthereis
arealisticpossibilitythatadissimilarcharacteristicexists,itwillexoneratethedefendant.
Thesecondquestionisthesignifcanceofthematch.Sincethereisnonationallyacceptedstandardof
thenumberofidenticalcharacteristicsrequiredforthematchtobeconclusiveofidentity,thetermsin
whichtheexpertexpresseshisconclusionandtheexperienceonwhichitisbasedwillbecritical.
Footnotes
244
Seepreviousfootnote
130
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
245
Thetakingoffngerprintsandothernon-intimateskinsamplesisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,section
63,andCodeDparagraphs6.5/6
246
247
Prints of the Human Foot
245

Afootprintisnotcapableofprovidingconclusiveevidenceofidentitysincethecomparisondoesnotdepend
upontheminutiaeofuniqueridgecharacteristicsbutuponthegeneralsize,shapeandcontoursofthefoot,
togetherwiththejuxtapositionofitsfeatures.Theprintmaybeleftbyabareorstockingedfootandthe
comparisonisusuallydemonstratedbytheuseofanoverlay.Directionstothejuryconcerningtheexactness
andthelimitationsofthematchwillfollowasimilarpatterntothoserequiredforfngerprints.Itisunusual
toobtainasceneofcrimeprintofsuchclarityandcompletenessthatanexactmatchevenofthesegeneral
featurescanbemade.Evenifanexactmatchisobtaineditisincapableofexcludingothersasdonorofthe
crimeprint.Atmostitwillplacethedefendantamongalargegroupofindividualswhocouldhaveleftthe
markandthejuryshouldbesodirected.Theevidenceoftheexpertastothesignifcanceofthematchwill
thereforerequirecloseattention.
Ear Prints
Whilethereisnoreasoninprinciplewhyearprintcomparisonshouldnotbeusedasanaidtoidentifcation,
thereareparticulardiffcultiesassociatedwithit.InDallagher
246
theCourtofAppealacceptedthatevidence
ofearprintcomparisonwasadmissiblebutallowedtheappealonthegroundoffreshexpertevidencewhich
tendedtounderminetheconfdencewithwhichthematchanditssignifcancewereexpressed.Atthere-trial
ordered,theprosecutionofferednoevidence.Aswabtakenatthepointatwhichthesceneofcrimeprintwas
leftproducedaDNAproflewhichexcludedthedefendantasthedonoroftheDNAmaterial.
InKempster(No2)
247
theappellantsuccessfullychallengedhisconvictionforburglaryarisingfromthe
identifcationofanearprintleftnearthepointofentry.IngivingthejudgmentoftheCourt,LathamLJgave
ahelpfuldescriptionoftechniquesforliftingandcomparingearprints,andwarnedagainstplacingundue
weightonanapparentmatchfoundintheshapeandgrossfeaturesoftheear.Hesummarisedtheevidence
receivedintheappealasfollows:
25. DrInglebyscriticismsfellessentiallyintothreeparts.First,hesoughttodemonstratetousthatevena
comparisonoftheprintsasoverlaidbyMissMcGowanshowedamismatchwhichinhisviewwassignifcant,
in other words was not one which was explained by difference of pressure, or movement. Second, he
producedhisowntransparenciesinwhichtheimpressionsleftbytheearweredifferentlycolouredoneach
transparency,soastoaccentuate,ashesubmitted,thediscrepanciesbetweenthetwoprints.Thirdly,he
saidthatinanyeventtheprintswereofsuchqualitythatonlywhathedescribedasthegrossdetailwas
visibleandcouldbecompared,thatisthemaincartilaginousfolds,whereastheworkwithwhichhehad
beenconnectedestablishedinhisviewthattheonlyreliableindicatorsforamatchwerewhathedescribed
as the minutiae. These are the small anatomical features such as notches, nodules or creases in the ear
structure.Therewere,inhisview,onlytwosuchminutiaeapparentfromtheprintsinquestion,namelya
noduleandanotchontheupperrimofthehelix,whichistheoutsiderimoftheear.Carefulmeasurement,
hesubmitted,showedthatthedistancebetweenthetwowasdifferentontheprintfromthesceneandthe
printfromtheappellant.

131
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
26. MissMcGowanadheredtoherviewthatthetwoprintsshowedamatchwhichjustifedherconclusion
thattheprintatthescenehadbeenmadebytheappellant.Shepointedoutthattheshapeandsizeof
theearsthatmadetheprintsweresocloselymatchedthatanysmalldifferencecouldbeexplainedbya
variationinpressure.TheapparentmismatchespointedoutbyDrInglebywere,shesaid,againentirely
explicable by differences in pressure, and differences in the way in which the two transparencies
were overlaid. As far as minutiae were concerned, she pointed out that the notch and the nodule were
in themselves unusual features and were identically placed on the helix, the difference in measurement
beingonewhichdependeduponpreciselywhereonthenotchandthenodulethemeasuringpointwas
placed.Eveniftherewas,asDrInglebyhadconcluded,adifferenceinthedistancebetweenthetwo,that
differencewasonlybetween2.2millimetresand2.5millimetres,inotherwordsagainentirelyexplicableby
avariation,forexampleinpressure.
27. Itisclear,particularlyfromtheevidenceofDrIngleby,thatear-printcomparisoniscapableofproviding
informationwhichcouldidentifythepersonwhohasleftanear-printonasurface.Thatiscertainlythecase
whereminutiaecanbeidentifedandmatched.Wheretheonlyinformationcomesfromthegrossfeatures,
wedonotunderstandhimtosaythatnomatchcaneverbemade,butthereislikelytobelessconfdence
insuchamatchbecauseofthefexibilityoftheearandtheuncertaintyofthepressurewhichwillhavebeen
appliedattherelevanttime.Miss McGowan still remains of the view that gross features are capable of
providing a reliable match.
28. On the basis of the evidence that we have heard, we are of the view that the latter can only be the
case where the gross features truly provide a precise match. We have no doubt that evidence of those
experienced in comparing ear-prints is capable of being relevant and admissible. The question in
each case will be whether it is probative. In the present case, having heard both Dr Ingleby and Miss
McGowan, and in particular having seen the various prints from which comparisons have been made,
we are struck by the gross similarity of the shape and size of the ear-prints used for the comparison,
and by the close similarity of the notch and the nodule on each. This, in our view, establishes that the
ear-print at the scene is consistent with having been left by the appellant. But having examined the
comparisons of the gross features, it is also apparent to us that they do not provide a precise match.
The differences may well be explicable by differences in pressure, or movement, but the extent of
the mismatch is such as to lead us to the conclusion that it could not be relied on by itself as justifying
a verdict of guilty.[Boldemphasisadded]
Earprintcomparisonsuffersadisadvantageincommonwithfacialmapping(seeChapter7(2)Identifcation
byCCTVandOtherImages,(4)IdentifcationbyFacialMapping).Whilethereisgeneralagreementamong
expertsthatnotwoearsarethesame,itisvirtuallyimpossibletoobtainanearimpressionwhichcontains
allrelevantfeaturesoftheear.Thecrimesceneimpressionisalsolikelytohavebeensubjecttovariationsin
pressureandtoatleastminutemovement,eitherofwhichwillaffectthereliabilityofthedetailleft.Thescope
forasignifcantnumberofreliablefeaturesforcomparisonisthereforelimitedandevenifthereisamatch
betweenthemthereisnomeansofassessingthestatisticalprobabilitythatthecrimesceneimpressionwas
leftbysomeoneotherthanthedefendant.
Directionstothejurywillrequireawarningaboutthelimitationsofthetechniqueandtheconclusionswhich
canbedrawnfromthecomparison.Allthatcanbederivedfromthecomparisonistheconclusionthatthe
defendantisoneofanunknownnumberofpeoplewhocouldhaveleftthemark.Thejuryshouldbetoldthat
theycouldnotconvictthedefendantontheearprintidentifcationalone.
Sources
Archbold14-53/55;BlackstoneF18.31,F18.33/34
132
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
248
[2003]1CrAppR5
249
28
(4) Identifcation by Voice
Introduction
Northern Ireland
1. InODoherty
248
theNorthernIrelandCourtofAppealconsideredanappealagainstconvictionfor
aggravatedburglary.Asignifcantpartoftheevidencefortheprosecutioncomprisedataperecorded
telephonecallbetweenthesuspectandtheemergencyservices.Thetrialjudgedirectedthejurythat
theycouldconsiderthefollowingevidenceastotheidentityofthecaller:
(1) Recognitionofthevoicebyapoliceoffcerwhoknewthedefendant;
(2) Opinionevidenceofavoiceexpert;
(3) Thejurysowncomparisonofthesuspectsspeechwiththedefendantsspeech.
2. Voicesandspeechcanbecomparedbytheexpertlistener(auditoryphoneticanalysis)andbyacoustic
recordingandmeasurement(quantitativeacousticanalysis).TheCourtconsideredevidencethatitwas
generallyacceptedamongexpertsthattheinexpertlistenercouldnotalonemakeareliablecomparison
ofvoiceandshouldonlyattemptitwiththeassistanceofanexpert.Anexpertsevidencewouldenable
thejurytoidentifyrelevantsimilaritiesinaccentordialectbutthatisnotgenerallyenoughtomakean
identifcation.Allthatauditoryphoneticanalysiscanachieveisajudgmentthatthedefendantisamong
thosewhocouldhaveusedthedisputedspeech.ThereasonforthisisthatPhoneticanalysisdoesnot
purporttobeatoolfordescribingthedifferencebetweenonespeakerandanother,thedifferences
whicharisefromthevocalmechanisms.Thewayinwhichwehearwillfailtodistinguishquiteanumber
ofthefeatureswhichareimportantindecidingwhethersamplescamefromtwospeakersorone.
249
Accordingly,itwasgenerallyacceptedthatquantitativeacousticanalysiswasanessentialrequirementof
professionalanalysisofvoices.
3. TheCourtreachedconclusionsastotheuseofvoiceidentifcationevidenceingeneralasfollows:
59......inthepresentstateofscientifcknowledgenoprosecutionshouldbebroughtinNorthernIreland
inwhichoneoftheplanksisvoiceidentifcationgivenbyanexpertwhichissolelyconfnedtoauditory
analysis.ThereshouldalsobeexpertevidenceofacousticanalysissuchasisusedbyDrNolan,DrFrench
andallbutasmallpercentageofexpertsintheUnitedKingdomandbyallexpertsintherestofEurope,
whichincludesformantanalysis.
60.Wemakethreeexceptionstothisgeneralstatement.Wherethevoicesofaknowngrouparebeing
listenedtoandtheissueis,whichvoicehasspokenwhichwordsorwheretherearerarecharacteristics
whichrenderaspeakeridentifablebutthismaybegthequestionortheissuerelatestotheaccentor
dialectofthespeaker(seeR.vMullan[1983]N.I.J.B.12)acousticanalysisisnotnecessary....
133
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. Evidenceofvoicerecognitionwasadmissibleand,ifadmitted
250
:
Itseemstousthat....thejuryshouldbeallowedtolistentoatape-recordingonwhichtherecognitionis
based,assumingthatthejuryhaveheardtheaccusedgivingevidence.Italsoseemstousthatthejurymay
listentoatape-recordingofthevoiceofthesuspectinordertoassisttheminevaluatingexpertevidence
andinmakinguptheirownmindsastowhetherthevoiceonthetapesisthevoiceofthedefendant.
5. Ofthepracticeofinvitingjuriestomaketheirownvoicecomparisonforthepurposeofassessingan
identifcationbyrecognitionorbyanexperttheCourtsaid:
65.Wearesatisfedthatifthejuryisentitledtoengageinthisexerciseinidentifcationonwhichexpert
evidenceisadmissible,aswehaveheld,thereshouldbeaspecifcwarninggiventothejurorsofthedangers
ofrelyingontheirownuntrainedears,whentheydonothavethetrainingorequipmentofanauditory
phoneticianorthetrainingorequipmentofanacousticphonetician,inconditionswhichmaybefarfrom
ideal,incircumstancesinwhichtheyareaskedtocomparethevoiceofoneperson,thedefendant,withthe
voiceonthetape,inconditionsinwhichtheymayhavebeenlisteningtothedefendantgivinghisevidence
andconcentratingonwhathewassaying,notcomparingitwiththevoiceonthetapeatthattimeandin
circumstancesinwhichtheymayhaveasubconsciousbiasbecausethedefendantisinthedock.Wedonot
seektolaydownpreciseguidelinesastotheappropriatewarning.Eachcasewillbegovernedbyitsown
setofcircumstances.Buttheauthoritiestowhichwehavereferredemphasisetheneedtogiveaspecifc
warningtothejurorsthemselves.
England and Wales
6. InFlynnandStJohn
251
theCourtofAppealofEnglandandWalesconsideredevidenceofvoicerecognition
bypoliceoffcers.Itwastheprosecutioncasethatthedefendantsweretobeheardinacovertlyrecorded
conversation.Theoffcerswerepermittedtogiveevidenceidentifyingwhateachdefendantsaidtothe
otherduringtheconversation,whichimplicatedtheminaconspiracytorob.Thedefendantsdeniedthat
theirvoicesweretobeheard.TheCourtheardexpertevidenceanddescribeditseffectasfollows
252
:
16.Ingeneraltermstheexpertevidencebeforeusdemonstratesthefollowing:
(1)Identifcationofasuspectbyvoicerecognitionismorediffcultthanvisualidentifcation.
(2)Identifcationbyvoicerecognitionislikelytobemorereliablewhencarriedoutbyexpertsusing
acousticandspectrographictechniquesaswellassophisticatedauditorytechniques,thanlaylistener
identifcation.
(3)Theabilityofalaylistenercorrectlytoidentifyvoicesissubjecttoanumberofvariables.Thereis
atpresentlittleresearchabouttheeffectofvariabilitybutthefollowingfactorsarerelevant:
Footnotes
250
63
251
252
16
134
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
253
53
(i)thequalityoftherecordingofthedisputedvoiceorvoices;
(ii)thegapintimebetweenthelistenerhearingtheknownvoiceandhisattempttorecognisethe
disputedvoice;
(iii)theabilityoftheindividuallaylistenertoidentifyvoicesingeneral.Researchshowsthatthe
abilityofanindividualtoidentifyvoicesvariesfrompersontoperson.
(iv)thenatureanddurationofthespeechwhichissoughttobeidentifedisimportant.Obviously,
somevoicesaremoredistinctivethanothersandthelongerthesampleofspeechthebetterthe
prospectofidentifcation.
(v)thegreaterthefamiliarityofthelistenerwiththeknownvoicethebetterhisorherchanceof
accuratelyidentifyingadisputedvoice.
However,researchshowsthataconfdentrecognitionbyalaylistenerofafamiliarvoicemayneverthelessbe
wrong.Onestudyusedtelephonespeechandinvolvedfourteenpeoplerepresentingthreegenerationsofthe
samefamilybeingpresentedwithspeechrecordedoverbothmobileandlandlinetelephones.Theresultsshowed
thatsomelistenersproducedmis-identifcations,failingtoidentifyfamilymembersorassertingsomerecordings
didnotrepresentanymemberofthefamily.Thestudyusedclearrecordingsofpeoplespeakingdirectlyintothe
telephone.
(4)DrHolmesstatesthatthecrucialdifferencebetweenalaylistenerandexpertspeechanalysisisthatthe
expertisabletodrawupanoverallprofleoftheindividualsspeechpatterns,inwhichthesignifcanceof
each parameter is assessed individually, backed up with instrumental analysis and reference research. In
contrast,thelaylistenersresponseisfundamentallyopaque.Thelaylistenercannotknowandhasnoway
ofexplaining,whichaspectsofthespeakersspeechpatternsheisrespondingto.Healsohasnowayof
assessingthesignifcanceofindividualobservedfeaturesrelativetotheoverallspeechprofle.Weadd,the
latterisadifferencebetweenvisualidentifcationandvoicerecognition;andtheopaquenatureofthelay
listenersvoicerecognitionswillmakeitmorediffculttochallengetheaccuracyoftheirevidence.
7. TheCourtheldthattheevidenceshouldnothavebeenadmittedontheprincipalgroundthatthecovert
recordingwasnotofsuffcientqualityforvoicerecognitiontobemadebythewitnesses.Furthermore,
theevidenceshouldhaveexcludedundersection78PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984because
inadequatestepshadbeentakentoensuretheintegrityoftherecognitionprocess
253
:
First,inouropinion,whentheprocessofobtainingsuchevidenceisembarkedonbypoliceoffcersitis
vitalthattheprocessisproperlyrecordedbythoseoffcers.Theamountoftimespentincontactwiththe
defendantwillbeveryrelevanttotheissueoffamiliarity.Secondly,thedateandtimespentbythepolice
offcercompilingatranscriptofacovertrecordingmustberecorded.Ifthepoliceoffcerannotatesthe
transcriptwithhisviewsastowhichpersonisspeaking,thatmustbenoted.Thirdly,beforeattempting
thevoicerecognitionexercisethepoliceoffcershouldnotbesuppliedwithacopyofatranscriptbearing
anotheroffcersannotationsofwhomhebelievesisspeaking.Anyannotatedtranscriptclearlycompromises
the ability of a subsequent listener to reach an independent opinion. Fourthly, for obvious reasons, it is
highlydesirablethatsuchavoicerecognitionexerciseshouldbecarriedoutbysomeoneotherthanan
offcerinvestigatingtheoffence.Itisalltooeasyforaninvestigatingoffcerwittinglyorunwittinglytobe
affectedbyknowledgealreadyobtainedinthecourseoftheinvestigation.
13S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. GageLJaddedgeneralobservations.TheCourtwouldnotfollowtheCourtofAppealinNorthernIreland
initsviewthatvoicerecognitionshouldneverbeadmittedwithoutexpertacousticanalysis.Sucha
fndingappearedtobeoutofstepwiththejudgmentoftheCourtinAttorneyGeneralsReference(No2
of2002)
254
concerningvisualrecognitionfromflmsorphotographsbuttheCourthadawarningtogive
abouttheuseofsuchevidenceandtheneedforanexplicitmodifedTurnbulldirectiontothejury:
62. As appears from the above we have been dealing in these appeals with issues arising out of voice
recognitionevidence.Nothinginthisjudgmentshouldbetakenascastingdoubtontheadmissibilityof
evidencegivenbyproperlyqualifedexpertsinthisfeld.Onthematerialbeforeusewethinkitneither
possiblenordesirabletogoasfarastheNorthernIrelandCourtofCriminalAppealinODohertywhich
ruledthatauditoryanalysisevidencegivenbyexpertsinthisfeldwasinadmissibleunlesssupportedby
expertevidenceofacousticanalysis.Sofaraslaylistenerevidenceisconcerned,inouropinion,thekeyto
admissibilityisthedegreeoffamiliarityofthewitnesswiththesuspectsvoice.Eventhenthedangersofa
mis-identifcationremain;themoresowheretherecordingofthevoicetobeidentifedispoor.
63. The increasing use sought to be made of lay listener evidence from police offcers must, in our
opinion, be treated with great caution and great care. In our view where the prosecution seek to rely
on such evidence it is desirable that an expert should be instructed to give an independent opinion
on the validity of such evidence. In addition, as outlined above, great care should be taken by police
offcers to record the procedures taken by them which form the basis for their evidence. Whether the
evidence is suffciently probative to be admitted will depend very much on the facts of each case.
64. It goes without saying that in all cases in which the prosecution rely on voice recognition
evidence, whether lay listener, or expert, or both, the judge must give a very careful direction to the
jury warning it of the danger of mistakes in such cases. [Boldemphasisadded]
Directions
Therearetwoseparateofareasofconcern.
Thefrstisvoicerecognitionbysomeonefamiliarwiththevoiceofthedefendant.InHersey
255
,the
defendantwaschargedwithrobbery.Vthoughtherecognisedthevoiceofoneoftherobbersasoneof
hiscustomers,H.ThepolicecarriedoutavoicecomparisonexerciseinwhichHandelevenvolunteers
readthesametext.Videntifedthedefendant.Thecourtapprovedtheprocedureandencouragedthe
useofsafeguardsandwarningstothejuryasneartothoseemployedfollowingTurnbullastheadaptation
wouldpermit.ThepossibledangersandprecautionswhichmayminimisethemweredescribedbyGage
LJinFlynnandStJohn(seeparagraphs16(2),(3)and(4),63and64ofthejudgmentabove).Hedidnot
refertothedesirabilityofavoicecomparisonexercisesuchasthatperformedinHersey.However,the
absenceofsuchaprocedurewouldbeamatterforcommentbythetrialjudge.
Footnotes
254
[2003]1CrAppR21(See(2)IdentifcationbyCCTVandOtherVisualImages)
255
[1999]CrimLR281
13o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thesecondareaofconcernistheuseofexpertevidencebasedsolelyuponauditoryanalysiswithout
recoursetoacousticanalysis.While,unlikethepracticeinNorthernIreland,thecourtsofEnglandand
Walesarepreparedtoreceivesuchevidence,itslimitationsweredescribedinODoherty(seeabove)
asbeingunabletodistinguishbetweenthevocalmechanismsofvoices.Itislikelytobethesubject
ofcriticismbyanexpertcalledonbehalfofthedefenceanddirectionswillneedtobetailoredtothe
evidenceinthecase.
Sources
Archbold14-52/52c;BlackstoneF18.30
137
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Identifcation by DNA
Introduction
256
Glossary:
Allele: Onememberofapairorseriesofgeneswhichcontrolthesametrait.Representedby
forensicscientistsateachlocusasanumber.
Alleledropin: Anapparentlyspuriousalleleseeninelectrophoresiswhichpotentiallyindicatesafalse
positivefortheallele.KnownasastochasticeffectofLCNwhenthematerialanalysed
islessthan100-200picograms(one10millionthofagrainofsalt).
Alleledropout: Anallelewhichshouldbepresentbutisnotdetectedbyelectrophoresis,givingafalse
negative.KnownasastochasticeffectofLCNasabove.
DNA: Deoxyribonucleicacidinthemitochondriaandnucleusofacellcontainsthegenetic
instructionsusedinthedevelopmentandfunctioningofallknownlivingorganisms.
DNAProfle: IsmadeupoftargetregionsofDNAcodifedbythenumberofSTR(seebelow)repeats
ateachlocus.
Electrophoresis: ThemethodbywhichtheDNAfragmentsproducedinSTRareseparatedand
detected.
Electrophoretogram: Theresultofelectrophorerisproducedingraphform
Locus/loci: Specifcregion(s)onachromosomewhereageneorshorttandemrepeat(STR)
resides.Theforensicscientistexaminestheallelesat10lociknowntodiffersignifcantly
betweenindividuals.
LowTemplateDNA/
LowCopyNumbering: ByincreasingthenumberofPCR(seebelow)cyclesfromthestandard28-30to34,
additionalamplifcationcanproduceaDNAproflefromtinyamountsofsample.
Masking: Whentwocontributorstoamixedproflehavecommonallelesatthesamelocusthey
maynotbeseparatelyrevealed;hencepairmaskstheother.
MixedProfle: Proflefrommorethanoneperson,detectedwhentherearemorethantwoallelesat
onelocus.Therewillfrequentlybeamajorandaminorcontributorinwhichtheminor
profleispartial.
NDNAD: NationalDNADatabase
PCR: Polymerasechainreaction,aprocessbywhichasinglecopyormorecopiesofDNA
fromspecifcregionsoftheDNAchaincanbeamplifed.
Footnotes
256
ThetakingofbodysamplesisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,sections62-63A,asamended,andby
CodeDparagraph6
138
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
SGMPlus: SecondGenerationMultiplexTest:anAmplifcationkitusedtogenerateDNAprofle.It
targets10STRlociplusthegendermarker.
STR: Shorttandemrepeat,whereapartoftheDNAmoleculerepeats.Comparisonofthe
patternorblocksproducedisthemodernformofDNAprofling,inusesincethe
1990s.
Stutter: ThePCRamplifcationoftetranucleotideshorttandemrepeat(STR)locitypically
producesaminorproductbandshorterthanthecorrespondingmainalleleband;this
isreferredtoasthestutterbandorshadowband.Theyarewellknownandidentifed
byanalysts.
Voids: Alocusatwhichnoallelesarefoundinthecrimespecimenprobablythrough
degradationofthematerial.Thedefendantmaysaythatthealleleswhichshouldhave
beentheremighthaveexcludedhim.
Profling DNA material
DifferentregionsorlociintheDNAchaincontainrepeatedblocksofalleles.Modernanalysisconcentrates
on10lociinthechainwhichareknowntocontainalleleswhichvarywidelybetweenindividuals,one
contributedbyeachparent.Thereisalsoagendermarker.ThesampleisamplifedusingPCR.Theblocksare
identifedusingelectrophoresis.Analysisoftheresultisachievedbymeansoflasertechnologywhichdetects
colouredmarkersforthealleles,convertedbyacomputersoftwareprogrammetographform.Theallelesare
representedbynumbersateachofthe10knownloci
LowtemplateDNAisthetechniquebywhichaminutequantityofDNAcanbecopiedtoproducean
amplifedsampleforanalysis.Boththelackofvalidationforthetechniqueandthedangerofcontamination
werecriticisedbyWeirJintheOmaghbombingcaseofHoey
257
leadingtotheexclusionoftheevidence.Asa
result,theForensicScienceRegulatorcommissionedareviewbyateamofexpertswhich,inApril2008,while
makingrecommendations,reachedfavourableconclusionsbothastomethodandastoprecautionstakenin
UKlaboratoriesagainstcontamination.
258
ThestateofthesciencewasthoroughlyreviewedbytheCourtof
AppealinEnglandandWalesinReed,ReedandGarmson
259
.ThomasLJexpressedtheconclusionofthecourt
asfollows:
74.Ontheevidencebeforeus,weconsiderwecanexpressouropinionthatitisclearthat,onthepresent
stateofscientifcdevelopment:
i)Low Template DNA can be used to obtain profles capable of reliable interpretation if the
quantityofDNAthatcanbeanalysedisabovethestochasticthresholdthatistosaywhere
the profle is unlikely to suffer from stochastic effects (such as allelic drop out mentioned at
paragraph48)whichpreventproperinterpretationofthealleles.
ii)There is no agreement among scientists as to the precise line where the stochastic threshold
shouldbedrawn,butitisbetween100and200picograms.
Footnotes
257
[2007]NICC49
258
http://police.homeoffce.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/Review_of_Low_Template_DNA_12835.pdf?view=Binary
259
[2009]EWCACrim2698
13
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
iii)Abovethatrange,theLCNprocessusedbytheFSScanproduceelectrophoretogramswhichare
capableofreliableinterpretation.Theremay,ofcourse,bedifferencesbetweentheexpertson
theinterpretation,forexampleastowhetherthegreaternumberofamplifcationsusedinthis
processhasintheparticularcircumstancesproducedartefactsandtheeffectofsuchartefactson
theinterpretation.CaremayalsobeneededininterpretationwheretheLCNprocessisusedon
largerquantitiesthanthatforwhichitisnormallyused.Howeverachallengetothevalidityofthe
methodofanalysingLowTemplateDNAbytheLCNprocessshouldnolongerbepermittedat
trialswherethequantityofDNAanalysedisabovethestochasticthresholdof100-200picograms
in the absence of new scientifc evidence. A challenge should only be permitted where new
scientifcevidenceisproperlyputbeforethetrialcourtataPleaandCaseManagementHearing
(PCMH)orotherpre-trialhearingfordetailedconsiderationbythejudgeinthewaydescribedat
paragraphs129andfollowingbelow.
iv)Aswehavementioned,itisnowthepracticeoftheFSStoquantifytheamountofDNAbefore
testing. There should be no diffculty therefore in ascertaining the quantity and thus whether
it is above the range where it is accepted that stochastic effects should not prevent proper
interpretationofaprofle.
v)There may be cases where reliance is placed on a profle obtained where the quantity of DNA
analysediswithintherangeof100-200picogramswherethereisdisagreementonthestochastic
thresholdonthepresentstateofthescience.Wewouldanticipatethatsuchcaseswouldberare
andthat,inanyevent,thescientifcdisagreementwillberesolvedasthescienceofDNAprofling
develops.Ifsuchacasearises,expertevidencemustbegivenastowhetherintheparticularcase,
areliableinterpretationcanbemade.Wewouldanticipatethatsuchevidencewouldbegivenby
personswhoareexpertinthescienceofDNAandsupportedbythelatestresearchonthesubject.
Wewouldnotanticipatetherebeinganyattackonthegoodfaithofthosewhosoughttoadduce
suchevidence.
Thejudgmentisavaluablesourceofinformationuponthefollowingtopics:(1)thetechniqueofconventional
DNAanalysis(paras.30-43),(2)thetechniqueofanalysisofLowTemplateDNAbytheLowCopyNumbering
(LCN)processandthephenomenonofstochasticeffects(paras.44-49),(3)matchprobability(paras.52-55),
(4)expertevidenceofthemannerandtimeoftransferofcellularmaterial(paras.59-61;81-103;111-127),(5)
theproceduralrequirementsofCPR33fortheadmissionofexpertevidence(paras.128-134),(6)analysisof
mixedandpartialproflesandtheeffectofthatanalysisupontheneedforcarefuldirectionsinsummingup
(paras18-25;178-215)
Interpretation of Results
Interpretationisamatterforexpertise.Theanalystiscomparingtheblocksofallelesateachlocusasidentifed
fromthecrimespecimenwiththeirequivalentfromthesuspectsspecimen.Thestatisticallikelihoodofa
matchateachlocuscanbecalculatedfromtheforensicsciencedatabaseof400profles.Ifamatchisobtained
ateachofthe10lociamatchprobabilityintheorderof1in1billionisachieved.Thefewerthenumberofloci
inthecrimespecimenproducingresultsforcomparisonthelessdiscriminatingwillbethematchprobability.
Match Probability
Therandomoccurrenceratio(ormatchprobability)isthestatisticalfrequencywithwhichthematch
inproflebetweenthecrimescenesampleandsomeoneunrelatedtothedefendantwillbefoundinthe
generalpopulation.Aprobabilityof1in1billionissolowthat,barringtheinvolvementofacloserelative,the
possibilitythatsomeoneotherthanthedefendantwasthedonorofthecrimescenesampleiseffectively
140
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
eliminated.Thissignifcantlyreducestheriskthattheprosecutorsfallacywillcreepintotheevidenceorhave
anyeffectupontheoutcomeofthetrial.
260
The Prosecutors Fallacy
Theprosecutorsfallacyconfusedtherandomoccurrenceratiowiththeprobabilitythatthedefendant
committedtheoffence.InDohenyandAdams
261
PhillipsLJdemonstrateditbyreferencetoarandom
occurrenceratioof1in1million.Thisdidnotmeanthattherewasa1inamillionchancethatsomeoneother
thanthedefendantleftthestain.Inamalepopulationof26milliontherewere26whocouldhaveleftthe
stain.Theoddsofsomeoneotherthanthedefendanthavingleftthestaindependuponwhetheranyofthe
other26isimplicated.
Mixed and Partial Profles
Itwillberecalledthateachparentcontributesonealleleateachlocus.Theanalystmayfndintheprofle
producedfromthecrimescenespecimenmorethantwoallelesatasinglelocus.Ifso,thespecimencontains
amixofDNAfrommorethanoneperson.Themajorcontributionwillbeindicatedbythehigherpeakson
thegraph.Separatingoutthedifferentproflesisamatterforexpertexaminationandanalysis.Thepresence
ofmixedproflesallowsthepossibilitythat,whilebothcontainthesamealleleatthesamelocus,oneallele
maskstheother.Further,thepresenceofstutter,representedbystuntedpeaksinthegraphicprofle,may
maskanallelefromaminorcontributor.
Theremayberecoveredfromthecrimescenespecimenaproflewhichispartialbecause,foronereasonor
another(e.g.degradation),noallelesarefoundatoneormoreloci.Thesearecalledvoids.Thesignifcance
ofvoidsliesinthepossibilitythatthevoidfailedtoyieldalleleswhichcouldhaveexcludedthedefendantfrom
thegroupwhocouldhaveleftthespecimenatthescene.Instatisticaltermsamatchingbutpartialprofle
willincreasethenumberofpeoplewhocouldhavelefttheirDNAatthescene.Itwastheproperstatistical
evaluationofapartialproflewhichwasthesubjectofappealinBates.
262
TheCourtofAppealheldthata
statisticalevaluationbaseduponthealleleswhichwerepresentanddidmatch(inthatcase1in610,000)was
bothsoundandadmissibleinevidenceprovidedthatthejuryweremadeawareoftheassumptionunderlying
thefguresandofthepossibilitiesraisedbythevoids.
Procedural Requirements
TheCourtinDohenyandAdamsheardevidencefromexpertsonbothsidesastotheappropriatemethodof
statisticalcalculationusedtoproducetherandomoccurrenceratio.Itsfocuswasuponthequestionwhether
thematchprobabilityforeachofseveralmatchingbandsintwoseparatetests(singleandmulti-locusprobes)
couldbemultipliedtoarriveattherandomoccurrenceratio.Theanswerwasnegativebecausethescientists
couldnoteliminatethepossibilitythattheresultsobtainedfromeachtestreplicatedoroverlappedone
another.TheresultwasdetailedguidancefromtheCourtastothewayinwhichsuchevidenceshouldbe
presentedandhandledattrial.InReed,ReedandGarmson
263
atparagraphs128-134theCourtemphasised
Footnotes
260
Gray[2005]EWCACrim3564at21-22
261
[1997]1CrAppR369
262
[2006]EWCACrim1395.Thejudgmentofthecourt,givenbyMoore-BickLJ,isausefulreferenceworkforadescriptionof
modernpracticeinDNAanalysis
263
Headnote[1997]1CrimAppR369-370
141
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
Footnotes
264
SeeChapter8ExpertEvidencebelow
theimportanceofpre-trialpreparationandmanagementandtheroleofCPR33.Atparagraph131ThomasLJ
said:
131IncasesinvolvingDNAevidence,
i)ItisparticularlyimportanttoensurethattheobligationunderRule33.3(1)(f)and(g)isfollowed
andalsothat,wherepropositionsaretobeadvancedaspartofanevaluativeopinion(ofthetype
givenbyValerieTomlinsoninthepresentcase),thateachpropositionisspeltoutwithprecisioninthe
expertreport.
ii)Expertreportsmust,aftereachhasbeenserved,becarefullyanalysedbytheparties.Wherea
disagreementisidentifed,thismustbebroughttotheattentionofthecourt.
iii)IfthereportsareavailablebeforethePCMH,thisshouldbedoneatthePCMH;butifthereports
havenotbeenservedbyallpartiesatthetimeofthePCMH(asmayoftenbethecase),itistheduty
oftheCrownandthedefencetoensurethatthenecessarystepsaretakentobringthematterback
beforethejudgewhereadisagreementisidentifed.
iv)ItwillthenintheordinarycasebenecessaryforthejudgetoexercisehispowersunderRule33.6
andmakeanorderfortheprovisionofastatement.
v)Wewouldanticipate,eveninsuchacase,that,aswaseventuallythepositioninthepresentappeal,
muchofthesciencerelatingtoDNAwillbecommonground.Theexpertsshouldbeabletosetout
inthestatementunderRule33.6incleartermsforuseatthetrialthebasicsciencethatisagreed,in
sofarasitisnotcontainedinoneofthereports.Theexpertsmustthenidentifywithprecisionwhat
isindisputeforexample,thematchprobability,theinterpretationoftheelectrophoretogramsor
theevaluativeopinionthatistobegiven.
vi) If the order as to the provision of the statement under Rule 33.6 is not observed and in the
absence of a good reason, then the trial judge should consider carefully whether to exercise the
powertorefusepermissiontothepartywhoseexpertisindefaulttocallthatexperttogiveevidence.
Inmanycases,thejudgemaywellexercisethatpower.Afailuretofndtimeforameetingbecauseof
commitmentstoothermatters,acommonproblemwithmanyexpertsaswasevidentinthisappeal,
isnottobetreatedasagoodreason.
132Thisprocedurewillalsoidentifywhethertheissueindisputeraisesaquestionofadmissibilitytobe
determinedbythejudgeorwhethertheissueisonewherethedisputeissimplyonefordeterminationby
thejury.
Theuseofhearsaystatementsfromlaboratorystaffandothersengagedintheprocessofanalysisisnow
expresslypermittedbysection127CriminalJusticeAct2003.RulesmadefortheCrownCourtwerecontained
inCPR24and33.AsfromOctober2009rule33hasbeenre-castandnowincorporatesformerrule24.
264
142
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
InDohenyandAdams
265
PhillipsLJcontinued:
11. In the summing-up careful directions are required in respect of any issues of expert evidence and
guidanceshouldbegiventoavoidconfusioncausedbyareasofexpertevidencewherenorealissueexists.
12.Thejudgeshouldexplaintothejurytherelevanceoftherandomoccurrenceratioinarrivingattheir
verdictanddrawattentiontotheextraneousevidencewhichprovidesthecontextwhichgivesthatratio
itssignifcance,andtothatwhichconfictswiththeconclusionthatthedefendantwasresponsibleforthe
crimestain.
13.Inrelationtotherandomoccurrenceratio,adirectionalongthefollowinglinesmaybeappropriate,
tailoredtothefactsoftheparticularcase:Membersofthejury,ifyouacceptthescientifcevidencecalled
bytheCrownthisindicatesthatthereareprobablyonlyfourorfvewhitemalesintheUnitedKingdom
fromwhomthatsemenstaincouldhavecome.Thedefendantisoneofthem.Ifthatistheposition,the
decisionyouhavetoreach,onalltheevidence,iswhetheryouaresurethatitwasthedefendantwholeft
thatstainorwhetheritispossiblethatitwasoneofthatothersmallgroupofmenwhosharethesameDNA
characteristics.
266
AdvancesinthesensitivityofDNAanalysishavebeensuchthatnowadayswhenafullproflehasbeen
obtainedthematchprobabilitywillbesolowthatthedefendantwillconcedethathewasthedonorofthe
sampletakenfromthescene.Thesummingupwillconcentrateonanexplanationgivenbythedefendantfor
hispresenceatthescene.
Controversyismorelikelytoariseinexpertassessmentofthesignifcanceofmixedandincompleteprofles.
Thetrialjudgewillneedtobeawareofandexplaintothejurythedifferencebetweenresultswhichare
capableofbearingamatchprobability(and,ifso,howitshouldbeexpressedinthelightoftheanalysis)and
thosematcheswhich,whilenotstatisticallysignifcant,donotexcludethedefendantasthesource.These
wereissueswhicharoseintheappealofGarmson
267
.
TheIllustrationbelowrepresentsanexampleofplacinginconclusiveDNAevidenceintothecontextofa
circumstantialcasesothatthejuryunderstandsitslimitations.
Footnotes
265
[1997]1CrAppR369
266
InAdams(No2)[1998]1CrAppR377theCourtofAppealconsideredasecondappealbyMrAdamsfollowinghisconviction
afterare-trial.ThistimetheDNAevidencewasstatisticallyevenstronger.ThejudgmentofLordBinghamCJisinterestingforits
referencestothedefencesapplicationofBayesTheoremtocalculateprobabilitiesrelatingtothenon-DNAandnon-scientifc
evidence.
267
[2009]EWCACrim2698.Seeparas18-25;178-215
143
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration murder of deceased in her bedroom - full, partial and mixed profles explanation of
signifcance statistical probabilities interpretation of DNA results defendant admits presence but
denies murder
TheDNAevidenceisnotindispute.However,theconclusionsyoureachfromitareverymuchinissue.
Cause of death
MsAwasfounddeadinherbedbyaneighbouratabout9amonSunday17May.Thecauseofdeathwas
blowstotheheadwithabluntinstrument.Abloodstainedbaseballbatwasfoundonthebed.Theforensic
pathologisthasgivenevidencethatthebaseballbatcouldhavecausedalltheinjuriessufferedbyMsAfrom
whichshediedsometimeduringSaturdaynightorearlySundaymorning.
Admitted contact between the deceased and the defendant
ThedefendantadmitsthatduringtheearlyeveningofSaturday,heandMsAhadsexualintercourseinthe
mainbedroomofhertwobedroomfat.SemenobtainedfromswabstakenfromMsAsvaginaafterher
deathwasanalysedbytheforensicscientist,MrB,andfoundtocontainwhatMrBdescribedasafullmatch
betweenthespecimenandthedefendantsDNA.ThedefendantgaveevidencethatheandMsAafterwards
smokedcigarettesinthebedroom.Asyouhaveseenfromthephotographs,cigarettebuttswererecovered
fromashtraysoneachsideofthebed.Thetipswereswabbedforsalivaandtheswabswereanalysedfor
DNA.Fromtheswabsrecoveredfromonesideofthebed,MrBobtainedafullDNAproflewhichmatched
theprofleofMsA;fromtheswabsobtainedfromtheothersideofthebedheobtainedafullDNAprofle
whichmatchedtheprofleofthedefendant.MrBnotedthatsomeofthecigarettebuttsandtheashtrayson
eachsideofthebedhadbeenspatteredwithtinyfecksofblood.Heconcludedthattheevidencesupported
thedefendantsaccountininterviewthathehadsmokedinthebedroomwithMsAbeforeshewaskilled.
Case for prosecution and defence
The prosecution case is that the defendant was her killer. The prosecution relies upon the further DNA
evidenceofMrBconcerningwhathefoundontwofurtheritems,MsAspurseandthebaseballbat.The
defendantsevidencewasthatwhenheleftMsAat9pmshewasaliveandsleepinginherbed.Whenhe
wasinMsAsbedroomhewasunawareofthepresenceofeitherabaseballbatorapurseandhecertainly
didnothandlethem.
DNA analysis, comparison and statistical evaluation
ItisimportantthatweunderstandwhatMrBmeantbyafullDNAprofleandafullDNAmatch.DNA
proflinghasbeenpartoftheforensicscientiststoolsforover20yearsnow.Ihavenodoubtyouwillhave
heardandreadaboutitscapabilitiesinthemedia.Therearevariouswaysinwhichitcanbeexplained.
Weasindividualsaremadeupofcells.DNAisthechemicalinourcellswhichdetermineswhoweare.We
inheritonehalfofourDNAfromeachparent.ThemorecloselyrelatedyouarethemoresimilaryourDNA
willbe.Butapartfromidenticaltwinswearealldifferent.Sofar,sciencehasnotsucceededincompilinga
completeDNAprofleforyouormesoitisimportanttounderstandwhatforensicscientistsmeanbyafull
DNAprofle.
144
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
AsMrBexplained,heconcentrateson10specifcareas(thescientistscallthemloci)oftheDNAchainwhich
areknowntovarywidelybetweenpeople.The11thareaisthesexindicator,theXXorXYchromosome.For
eachofthose10lociexceptforonethereisacomponentprovidedbydadandanotherprovidedbymum.In
oneofthemthecomponentprovidedbydadandmumisidentical.ThatiswhyMrBexplainedthatforensic
scientistswerelookingat19componentsineachprofle.Eachcomponentateachlocusisrepresentedbya
numberandthenumberiscalledbythescientistsanallele.
Full and partial profles
So,ifMrBandhiscolleaguesfndwhattheycallafullprofletheyhavefoundamatchinthose19alleles
indifferentlociwhichareknowntovarywidelybetweenindividuals,andtheyhavedeterminedthatboth
proflescomefromeitheramaleorfemale.BecausetheForensicScienceServiceusesadatabaseof400
knownproflestakenfromawiderangeofindividualstheyareabletocalculatetheprobabilitythataprofle
beingexaminedwillbefoundelsewhereinthepopulation.Eachtimeoneofthoseallelesismatched,the
chancesoffndinganotherpersonwiththesamealleleinthesamelocusdecreasesatacompoundrate.So
when,usingMrBstechnique,amatchofall19allelesandthesexindicatorisfoundbetweentheprofle
foundonacigarettebuttatthesceneandthedefendantsknownprofle,MrBisabletosaythatthechance
offndinganothermatchwithapersonintheUKpopulationunrelatedtothedefendantis1in1billion.The
populationoftheUKisabout60millions.Itisforyoutodecidewhetherinthecircumstancesofthiscase
thateffectivelyexcludesanyoneelsebutthedefendantacceptsthathewasthedonorofthesalivaonthe
cigarettebuttsonhissideofthebed.
Thequalityofthespecimenmaybesuchthatonlyafewallelesarefoundinthescientifctest.All19must
havebeenthereoriginallybuttheyhavenotbeenrevealedbytheanalysis.Obviously,thefewerthenumber
ofmatches,thelessdiscriminatingisthestatisticalresult.YouwillhavenoticedthatwhenMrBfoundonly2
allelesfromaswabtakenfromonelocationonthebaseballbatwhichmatchedtheprofleofthedefendant,
hedidnotputastatisticalevaluationonit,becauseinhisviewhisfndingwasstatisticallyinsignifcant.
Whathemeantwasthatyoucannotrelyonthematchofonlytwoallelestomakeanyidentifcationofthe
donorbecausetherearesomanypeopleintheUKpopulationwhowouldmatchit.
Origin, deposit and transfer of DNA material
ThenextthingweneedtorememberisthattheDNAresultdoesnotnecessarily,ofitself,tellusfromwhat
cellularmaterialtheresultwasproduced.Itcouldhavebeenblood,orinthecaseofaman,semen,orit
couldhavebeensaliva,asinthecaseofthecigarettebutts,oritcouldhavebeenaslakeofskinorsweat.
WhenMrBwasdescribingsalivaonthecigarettebuttsandsemenonthevaginalswabhewasonlyusing
commonsense.Thatiswhatthematerialprobablywasgiventheplacefromwhichthespecimenwastaken.
Secondly,aswehaveheard,therehastobeenoughgoodqualitymaterialtoproduceafullprofle.Just
becauseyouhavehandledanobjectdoesnotmeanyouleftyourDNA.Youmaydooryoumaynot.If
youdo,youmaynotleaveenoughmaterialtoprovideafullprofle.YoucanpickupsomeoneelsesDNA
andplaceitonanotherobjectwhichyouhandle.YoucanwipebloodwithaclothandtheDNAmaybe
transferredtothecloth.YoumaywipetheclothonanothersurfaceandtransferDNAfromtheclothinthe
process.Ifyourhandhassomeonesbloodonityoucantransferittoanotherobject.MrBtoldushowhe
tookswabsfromthebaseballbatandthepurse.SometimesitwasobvioustoMrBfromhisexperienceof
examiningsuchmaterialthatitwasblood.Onotheroccasionsitseemstohavebeenamixtureofbloodand
somethingelse.Interpretationisamatterofdeductionandjudgementbyanexpert,whoseevidenceyou
havetoconsider,sowehavetotakecaretounderstandexactlywhatMrBwassaying.
14S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mixed and partial profle from purse
RecoveredfrominsidethebedsidecabinetonMsAssideofthebedwasherpurse.Itwasempty.MrBfound
tinysmearsofbloodstainingontheouterandinnersurfacesofthewallet.Hepreparedthephotographsat
pages5and6.Hehasmarkedtheareaswherehesawwhatappearedtobesmearsofbloodandnumbered
them.Onpage5hehasmarkedontheinsidesurfaceofthepurse,area1.Fromarea1heobtainedaswab
whichprovidedhimwithaDNAproflewhichappearedtobeamixtureoftwopeople.Hecouldtellthat
twoormorepeoplehadcontributedbecausehefoundmorethantwoallelesinthesamelocusintheprofle.
Themajorcomponentofthemixedproflecamefromawoman.Theminorcomponentwasprovidedbya
manormorethanoneman.Heobtainedafullprofleforthewoman.ItmatchedMsAsprofle.MrBtold
youthattheminorproflewasincomplete.Itcomprisedfourdistinctalleles,oneineachoffourseparate
loci.MrBtoldyouthat,assumingthesefourallelescamefromoneperson,thematchprobabilitythatthe
DNAbelongedtosomeoneunrelatedtothedefendantwas1in120.Inotherwords,forevery120menin
themalepopulation,unrelatedtothedefendant,onecouldhavebeenthesourceoftheDNA.Thereare,
therefore,onMrBsassumptionabout250,000menintheUKwhocouldhavelefttheircellularmaterial
insideMsAspurse.
MrBwascrossexamined.HeagreedthathehadbeenprovidedwiththeDNAproflesofthemenknown
tohavehadarelationshipwithMsAwithinthepreceding3years.Oneofthosemen,MrC,hadhada
relationshipwithMsAwhichlastedforsome3weeksabout2yearsbeforeMsAdied.Ofthefourcomponents
inthemixedprofleinsidethepursewhichdidnotcomefromMsA,twoofthemmatchedMrCandtheother
twodidnot.If,contrarytoMrBsassumption,weassumethattheminorcomponentwascontributedby
twomen,oneofwhomwasMrC,thematchprobabilitythattheothertwocamefromsomeoneunrelated
tothedefendantwas1in9.Thatwouldmeanthatabout10percentofthemalepopulationoftheUKor
about3millionmencouldhavelefttheprofle.
MrCgaveevidence.HetoldyouthatasfarashecanrecallhehadneverhandledMsAspurseandhad
certainly never opened it. Depending upon your view, the evidence of Ms As sister, Ms E, may be more
signifcant.ShetoldyouthatshepurchasedthepurseforMsAforherlastbirthdayon28Marchlastyear,
atleastayearafterherrelationshipwithMrCwasover.Shewasnotchallengedabouttheaccuracyofher
recollection.
ItfollowsthatyourjudgementofthesignifcanceoftheDNAevidenceconcerningthepursemaybedifferent
dependinguponyourdecisionwhetheryoucanexcludethepossibilitysoyouaresurethatMrCatsome
stagehandledMsAspurse.
Partial profle from baseball bat
Ishallturnnexttothehandleofthebaseballbat.MrBswabbedthehandleinanareawherehewouldhave
expectedthebattobegrippedbutwhichappearedtobeuncontaminatedwithblood.Heobtainedfrom
theresultingswabanincompleteprofle.Hefoundsixalleleswhichmatchedthecorrespondingallelesinthe
defendantsprofle.Assumingthattheycamefromonepersonthematchprobabilityofthatpersonbeing
unrelatedtothedefendantwas1in2,500.Thereare,onMrBsassumption,about12,000menintheUK
whocouldhaveleftthismaterialonthebaseballbat.
14o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
AgainMrBwascrossexamined.Hehadcomparedtheprofleheobtainedfromthehandleofthebaseball
batwiththeprofleofaman,MrD,whohadlivedasalodgerinherfatfor6monthsuntilNewYearsDay,
somefourandhalfmonthsbeforeMsAsdeath.ThreeoftheallelesfoundbyMrBinthespecimenfromthe
handlematchedMrDsprofle.IfweassumethatitwasMrDwhosecellularmaterialproducedthosethree
alleles,thenthematchprobabilityoftheotherthreebeingleftbysomeoneunrelatedtothedefendantrises
to1in77.Thatwouldmeanthatsome400,000mencouldhavedepositedtheotherthreealleles.
MrDalsogaveevidence.DuringthetimethathelivedatMsAsfathehadpurchasedthebaseballbat.
TherehadbeenaspateofburglarieslocallyandhepurchasedthebatforMsAsprotection.Itwaskeptby
MsAinthecornerofherbedroomand,tohisknowledge,hehadnottoucheditsinceitwasputtherein
aboutOctober.WhenheleftthefatinJanuarythebatremainedwhereitwas.Itisanagreedfactthatat
thetimeofMsAsdeathMrDwasonhoneymoonwithhiswifeinFrance.Youmayconcludethatalthough
nootheralleleswererevealedintheanalysiswhichwouldbeconsistentwithMrDbeingthedonor,there
iseveryreasontothinkhemighthavedone.Youshouldthereforeassumethattheotherthreeallelescould
havebeendepositedby400,000menintheUKofwhomthedefendantwasonlyone.
Evaluation of DNA evidence
MrBwasaskedtoevaluatethesignifcanceofhisfndings.Hetoldyouthattheresultswerewhathewould
expecttofndif:
(1) ThedefendantwaspresentinMsAsbedroombeforeherdeathsmokingcigarettes.
(2) ThedefendanthadopenedMsAspurse.
(3) Thedefendanthadhandledthebaseballbat.
AlloftheDNAfoundonthepursecouldbeaccountedforbyMsAandthedefendant.AlloftheDNAfound
onthebaseballbatcouldbeaccountedforbythedefendant.Itwaspossible,however,thatsomeoneother
thanthedefendantorsomeonerelatedtohimhadhandledboththepurseandthebaseballbat.TheDNA
evidenceisincapableofestablishing,byitself,thatthedefendantdidhandleMsAspurseorthathehandled
the baseball bat. The defendant is just one of many thousands of men who could have left the cellular
materialwhichproducedtheproflesMrBobtained.
Directions
TheDNAevidenceisnotalonecapableofprovingtheidentityofthekiller.Allitcando,dependingupon
yourjudgementoftheevidenceofMrC,MsEandMrD,istonarrowdownsomewhatthegroupofmen
whocouldhaveleftcellularmaterialonthepurseandthebaseballbat.EvenifyouweretobesurethatMrC
andMrDdidnotleavetheirDNAonthoseitems,thereremainmanythousandsofmenintheUK,unrelated
tothedefendant,whocouldhavedone.
However,theDNAevidencedoesnotstandalone.YouhaveheardfromMsAssister,MsE,thatshevisited
hersisteratlunchtimeonSaturday.Theyhadacupofcoffeetogether.MissAtoldherthatshewasdueto
payasubstantialbillforrepairstohercaratherlocalgarage.Shehadsavedup500incash.Shetookthe
moneyfromapotinthekitchenandplaceditinherpursewhichsheputonthekitchentable.Itwasstill
147
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
therewhenthedefendantcalledatthefatatabout4pmandMsEleft.Thatmoneywasneverpaidtothe
garageanditwasnotinthepursewhenthepursewasrecoveredfromthebedsidecabinet.Atabout11pm
onSaturdaynightthedefendantwenttoacasinoinManchestercitycentreandremainedthereuntil2am.
Heexchanged500cashforchipswhich,duringthecourseofthenight,helost.Heleftthecasinowhenhe
wasrefusedcreditandthecasinorefusedtocashhischeque.Thedefendantsaidinevidencethatthe500
wasaccumulatedwinningsfrompreviousvisitstothecasino.
I will remind you of this and the other evidence of the surrounding circumstances, together with the
defendantsevidence,inmoredetaillater.TheprosecutioninvitesyoutoinferthatMsAtookherpurseinto
thebedroomwithher.Whileshewasasleepthedefendanttooktheopportunitytostealhermoney.When
MsAawoketodiscoverwhatwashappeningthedefendantbeatherwiththebaseballbatuntilshewas
dead.Thedefencecaseisthatnosuchinferenceisavailableor,ifitis,youcouldnotbesureofit.
Sources
Archbold14-58;BlackstoneF18.32
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 7: identifiCation evidenCe
148
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 8: expert eviDence
Introduction
268
Procedure
CriminalProcedureRule33(re-castinOctober2009byCriminalProcedure(Amendment)Rules2009SI
2009/2087)providesasfollows:
269
33.1 Reference to expert
AreferencetoanexpertinthisPartisareferencetoapersonwhoisrequiredtogiveorprepare
expertevidenceforthepurposeofcriminalproceedings,includingevidencerequiredtodetermine
ftnesstopleadorforthepurposeofsentencing.
33.2 Experts duty to the court
(1) Anexpertmusthelpthecourttoachievetheoverridingobjectivebygivingobjective,unbiased
opiniononmatterswithinhisexpertise.
(2)Thisdutyoverridesanyobligationtothepersonfromwhomhereceivesinstructionsorby
whomheispaid.
(3)This duty includes an obligation to inform all parties and the court if the experts opinion
changesfromthatcontainedinareportservedasevidenceorgiveninastatement.
33.3 Content of experts report
(1) Anexpertsreportmust
(a)givedetailsoftheexpertsqualifcations,relevantexperienceandaccreditation;
(b)givedetailsofanyliteratureorotherinformationwhichtheexperthasreliedoninmaking
thereport;
(c)containastatementsettingoutthesubstanceofallfactsgiventotheexpertwhichare
materialtotheopinionsexpressedinthereport,oruponwhichthoseopinionsarebased;
(d)makeclearwhichofthefactsstatedinthereportarewithintheexpertsownknowledge;
(e)saywhocarriedoutanyexamination,measurement,testorexperimentwhichtheexpert
hasusedforthereportand
(i)givethequalifcations,relevantexperienceandaccreditationofthatperson,
Footnotes
268
SeealsoExpertEvidenceProfessorDavidOrmerodandAndrewRoberts(December2007)andUpdateProfessorOrmerod
(August2008)JSBwebsite,Criminal/E-library/Evidence;TheAdmissibilityofExpertEvidenceinCriminalProceedingsinEngland
andWalesANewApproachtotheDeterminationofEvidentiaryReliability,LawCommissionConsultationPaper190
269
NotetheapplicationoftheruletoexpertDNAevidence,Chapter7(5)IdentifcationbyDNA,ProceduralRequirementsand
observationsofThomasLJinReed,ReedandGarmson[2009]EWCACrim2698paras128-134
14
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
270
Thedefencewasnotpermittedtorelyuponapsychiatricreportforthepurposesofsection35CriminalJusticeandPublic
OrderAct1994withwhichtheprosecutionwas,contrarytoformerRule24,ambushedafteradecisionhadbeenmadethat
defendantwouldnotgiveevidence:Ensor[2009]EWCACrim2519
(ii)saywhetherornottheexamination,measurement,testorexperimentwascarriedout
undertheexpertssupervision,and
(iii)summarisethefndingsonwhichtheexpertrelies;
(f)wherethereisarangeofopiniononthemattersdealtwithinthereport
(i)summarisetherangeofopinion,and
(ii)givereasonsforhisownopinion;
(g)iftheexpertisnotabletogivehisopinionwithoutqualifcation,statethequalifcation;
(h)containasummaryoftheconclusionsreached;
(i) contain a statement that the expert understands his duty to the court, and has
compliedandwillcontinuetocomplywiththatduty;and
(j)containthesamedeclarationoftruthasawitnessstatement.
(2) Only sub-paragraphs (i) and (j) of rule 33.3(1) apply to a summary by an expert of his
conclusionsservedinadvanceofthatexpertsreport.
33.4 Service of expert evidence
(1)Apartywhowantstointroduceexpertevidencemust
(a)serveiton
(i)thecourtoffcer,and
(ii)eachotherparty;
(b)serveit
(i)assoonaspracticable,
270
andinanyevent
(ii)withanyapplicationinsupportofwhichthatpartyreliesonthatevidence;and
(c) if another party so requires, give that party a copy of, or a reasonable opportunity to
inspect
(i)arecordofanyexamination,measurement,testorexperimentonwhichtheexperts
fndingsandopinionarebased,orthatwerecarriedoutinthecourseofreachingthose
fndingsandopinion,and
(ii) anything on which any such examination, measurement, test or experiment was
carriedout.
(2)A party may not introduce expert evidence if that party has not complied with this rule,
unless

(a)everyotherpartyagrees;or
(b)thecourtgivespermission.
8: expert evidenCe
1S0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
33.5 Expert to be informed of service of report
Apartywhoservesonanotherpartyoronthecourtareportbyanexpertmust,atonce,inform
thatexpertofthatfact.
33.6 Pre-hearing discussion of expert evidence
(1) Thisruleapplieswheremorethanonepartywantstointroduceexpertevidence.
(2)Thecourtmaydirecttheexpertsto
(a)discusstheexpertissuesintheproceedings;and
(b)prepareastatementforthecourtofthemattersonwhichtheyagreeanddisagree,giving
theirreasons.
(3)Exceptforthatstatement,thecontentofthatdiscussionmustnotbereferredtowithoutthe
courtspermission.
(4) Apartymaynotintroduceexpertevidencewithoutthecourtspermissioniftheexperthas
notcompliedwithadirectionunderthisrule.
33.7 Courts power to direct that evidence is to be given by a single joint expert
(1) Wheremorethanonedefendantwantstointroduceexpertevidenceonanissueattrial,the
courtmaydirectthattheevidenceonthatissueistobegivenbyoneexpertonly.
(2)Wheretheco-defendantscannotagreewhoshouldbetheexpert,thecourtmay
(a)selecttheexpertfromalistpreparedoridentifedbythem;or
(b)directthattheexpertbeselectedinanotherway.
33.8 Instructions to a single joint expert
(1) Wherethecourtgivesadirectionunderrule33.7forasinglejointexperttobeused,eachof
theco-defendantsmaygiveinstructionstotheexpert.
(2)Whenaco-defendantgivesinstructionstotheexperthemust,atthesametime,sendacopy
oftheinstructionstotheotherco-defendant(s).
(3)Thecourtmaygivedirectionsabout
(a)thepaymentoftheexpertsfeesandexpenses;and
(b)anyexamination,measurement,testorexperimentwhichtheexpertwishestocarryout.
(4) Thecourtmay,beforeanexpertisinstructed,limittheamountthatcanbepaidbywayoffees
andexpensestotheexpert.
(5)Unlessthecourtotherwisedirects,theinstructingco-defendantsarejointlyandseverallyliable
forthepaymentoftheexpertsfeesandexpenses.
1S1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
33.9 Courts power to vary requirements under this Part
(1) Thecourtmay
(a)extend(evenafterithasexpired)atimelimitunderthisPart;
(b)allowtheintroductionofexpertevidencewhichomitsadetailrequiredbythisPart.
(2)Apartywhowantsanextensionoftimemust
(a)applywhenservingtheexpertevidenceforwhichitisrequired;and
(b)explainthedelay.
Hearsay
Bysection30CriminalJusticeAct1988thecourtmay,subjecttofairness,admitinevidenceanexpertsreport
withouttheattendanceofthemaker.Section30provides:
(1) Anexpertreportshallbeadmissibleasevidenceincriminalproceedings,whetherornotthe
personmakingitattendstogiveoralevidenceinthoseproceedings.
(2)Ifitisproposedthatthepersonmakingthereportshallnotgiveoralevidence,thereportshall
onlybeadmissiblewiththeleaveofthecourt.
(3)Forthepurposeofdeterminingwhethertogiveleavethecourtshallhaveregard
(a)tothecontentsofthereport;
(b)tothereasonswhyitisproposedthatthepersonmakingthereportshallnotgiveoral
evidence;
(c)toanyrisk,havingregardinparticulartowhetheritislikelytobepossibletocontrovert
statementsinthereportifthepersonmakingitdoesnotattendtogiveoralevidenceinthe
proceedings,thatitsadmissionorexclusionwillresultinunfairnesstotheaccusedor,ifthereis
morethanone,toanyofthem;and
(d)toanyothercircumstancesthatappeartothecourttoberelevant.
(4) Anexpertreport,whenadmitted,shallbeevidenceofanyfactoropinionofwhichtheperson
makingitcouldhavegivenoralevidence.
(4A) Where the proceedings mentioned in subsection (1) above are proceedings before a
magistratescourtinquiringintoanoffenceasexaminingjusticesthissectionshallhaveeffectwith
theomissionof
(a) in subsection (1) the words whether or not the person making it attends to give oral
evidenceinthoseproceedings,and
(b)subsections(2)to(4).]
(5)Inthissectionexpertreportmeansawrittenreportbyapersondealingwhollyormainly
withmattersonwhichheis(orwouldiflivingbe)qualifedtogiveexpertevidence.
Theuseofhearsaystatementsfromlaboratorystaffandothersengagedintheprocessofanalysisisnow
expresslypermittedbysection127CriminalJusticeAct2003whichprovides:
8: expert evidenCe
1S2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Expertevidence:preparatorywork
127.(1)Thissectionappliesif
(a)astatementhasbeenpreparedforthepurposesofcriminalproceedings,
(b)thepersonwhopreparedthestatementhadormayreasonablybesupposedtohavehad
personalknowledgeofthemattersstated,
(c)noticeisgivenundertheappropriaterulesthatanotherperson(theexpert)willinevidence
givenintheproceedingsorallyorundersection9oftheCriminalJusticeAct1967(c.80)base
anopinionorinferenceonthestatement,and
(d)thenoticegivesthenameofthepersonwhopreparedthestatementandthenatureofthe
mattersstated.
(2)In evidence given in the proceedings the expert may base an opinion or inference on the
statement.
(3)Ifevidencebasedonthestatementisgivenundersubsection(2)thestatementistobetreated
asevidenceofwhatitstates.
(4) This section does not apply if the court, on an application by a party to the proceedings,
ordersthatitisnotintheinterestsofjusticethatitshouldapply.
(5)The matters to be considered by the court in deciding whether to make an order under
subsection(4)include
(a)theexpenseofcallingasawitnessthepersonwhopreparedthestatement;
(b)whetherrelevantevidencecouldbegivenbythatpersonwhichcouldnotbegivenbythe
expert;
(c) whether that person can reasonably be expected to remember the matters stated well
enoughtogiveoralevidenceofthem.
(6)Subsections(1)to(5)applytoastatementpreparedforthepurposesofacriminalinvestigation
astheyapplytoastatementpreparedforthepurposesofcriminalproceedings,andinsuchacase
referencestotheproceedingsaretocriminalproceedingsarisingfromtheinvestigation.
(7)Theappropriaterulesarerulesmade
(a)undersection81ofthePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984(advancenoticeofexpert
evidenceinCrownCourt),or
(b)undersection144oftheMagistratesCourtsAct1980(c.43)byvirtueofsection20(3)of
theCriminalProcedureandInvestigationsAct1996(c.25)(advancenoticeofexpertevidence
inmagistratescourts).
271
Bysection118CriminalJusticeAct2003thecommonlawruleenablinganexperttodrawonthebody
ofexpertiserelevanttohisfeldispreserved.
272
Footnotes
271
Notealsothepossibleapplicationofsection17CriminalJusticeAct2003(businessdocuments)andsection30CriminalJustice
Act1988(admissibilitywithleaveofawrittenexpertsreport)
272
Notealsothepossibleapplicationofsection117CriminalJusticeAct2003(businessdocuments)
1S3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
273
Stockwell[1993]97CrAppR260,perLordTaylorCJatpage266
274
Daviev.MagistratesofEdinburgh[1953]SC34atpage40
275
Anderson[1972]100(PC)inwhichthetrialjudgewronglyimpliedthatthejurycouldsubstitutefortheexpertsfndingthat
therewasnobloodtobeseenonthedefendantsboots,theirowncontraryconclusion.Thejurycouldnotsupplanttheexperts
physicalfndingwiththeresultoftheirowninexpertexamination;Sanders[1991]93CrAppR245;Lanfear[1968]2QB77,52Cr
AppR176
276
277
278
[2008]EWCACrim971
279
Directions
Thepurposeofexpertevidenceoffact(e.g.observation,test,calculation)andopinionistoassistthejury
inareasofscienceorothertechnicalmattersuponwhichtheycannotbeexpectedtoformaviewwithout
expertassistance.Nevertheless,theultimatedecisiononthemattersaboutwhichtheexperthasexpressed
anopinionremainsoneforthejuryandnotfortheexpert.Thejuryshouldbeinformedthattheyarenot
boundbyexpertopinion,particularlywhentheexperthasexpressedanopinionontheultimateissuein
thetrial.
273
Itwouldbeamisdirectiontoassertthatanexpertsopiniongivenonbehalfoftheprosecution
shouldbeacceptedifitisuncontradicted.
274
However,whenthereisnoevidencecapableofundermining
unchallengedexpertopinionthatfactmaybeand,whentheevidenceisfavourabletothedefencecase,
shouldbeemphasised.Itmaybeimportanttodistinguishbetweenexpertexaminationofphysicalobjects
underlaboratoryconditionsandtheconclusiondrawnbytheexpertfromtheresults.Thejuryshouldbe
discouragedfromattemptingtoactastheirownexperts,e.g.inhandwritingandfngerprintcases.
275
ForthelimitationsofexpertevidenceattheboundariesofmedicalknowledgeseeCannings
276
andKai-
Whitewind
277
and,whenmedicalunderstandingisincomplete,Holdsworth
278
andHarrisandothers
279
.
Itiscommonforexpertsfromdifferentareasofexpertisetogiveevidenceconcerningthesameorlinked
issues.Forexample,aconsultantpathologist,neurosurgeonandanorthopaedicsurgeonmayallgive
evidenceastothecauseofadeathorseriousinjuries.Thetrialjudgewillneedtobewatchfulforexperts
strayingoutsidetheirareasofexpertiseandtoexplaintothejuryitspossibleeffectupontheirassessmentof
theevidence.
Forensicscientistshaveaccesstoinformationaboutthefrequencywithwhichtheirfndingsmightbe
replicatedintheUKatlarge(e.g.therefractiveindexofglass,amanufactureandmodeloffootwear,DNA
profles).Wheneverstatisticalevidenceisproducedtosupportexpertconclusionitwillbenecessarycloselyto
examineanydataproduceduponwhichtheevidenceisbasedandtoensurethattheconclusionissupported
bythedataandexplainedtothejury,withahealthwarningifnecessary.
Marshallingdisputedexpertevidenceinaformcalculatedtoprovidethejurywithacomprehensible
summaryoftheissuesfortheirdecisionisanimportantandoftendiffculttaskwhichwillrequirecareful
preparation.Thefollowingillustrationsdonotpurporttodealwithanyparticularareaofexpertisewhichwill
almostcertainlyrequireindividualtreatment.
8: expert evidenCe
1S4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration Experts on both sides purpose of expert evidence - distinguishing fact and opinion
decision for jury weight for jury
Boththeprosecutionandthedefencehavereliedupontheevidenceofexpertwitnessesinthefollowing
categories.....This kind of evidence is given to help you with scientifc or technical matters about which
the witnesses are expert and we are not. As you have heard, experts carry out examinations and some
conductteststoseewhethertheyyieldresultswhicharerelevanttotheissuesyouhavetoconsider.They
arepermittedtointerpretthoseresultsforourbeneft,andtoexpressopinionsaboutthem,becausetheyare
usedtodoingthatwithintheirparticularareaofexpertise.Youwillneedtoevaluateexpertevidenceforits
strengthsandweaknesses,ifany,justasyouwouldwiththeevidenceofanyotherwitness.Rememberthat
whileexpertsdealwithparticularpartsofthecase,youreceivealltheevidenceanditisonalltheevidence
thatyoumustmakeyourfnaldecisions.
Where,ashere,thereisnodisputeaboutthefndingsmadebyanexpertyouwouldnodoubtwishtogive
effecttothem,althoughyouarenotboundtodosoifyouseegoodreasonintheevidencetorejectthem.
Ontheotherhand,opinionsastothesignifcanceofthosefndingsarecertainlyindisputeandjudging
thesecompetingviewsisamatterforyou.Expertsarenotheretoarguethecaseforonesideortheother
buttoassistyoutounderstandhowtheyhavereachedtheopinionstheyhaveexpressed.Evaluatingtheir
evidencewillthereforeincludeaconsiderationoftheirexpertise,theirfndingsandthequalityoftheanalysis
whichsupportstheiropinions.
If,aftergivingcarefulconsiderationtotheevidenceofanexpert,youdonotaccepthisopinion,thenyou
shouldnotactuponit.Theweightyouattachtoanyconclusionyoudoacceptisforyoutodetermine.
Illustration Warning against self-expertise experts giving evidence
Injudgingtheevidenceoftheexpertstheadvocateshaveinvitedyoutoreachconclusionsfromyourown
examinationoftheexhibits.Thatisaperfectlylegitimaterequesttomake.Afterall,howcanyouformaview
abouttheaccuracyoftheexpertsconclusionswithoutfollowingwhattheyhavedemonstratedtoyou?That
doesnotmean,however,thatyoushouldbetemptedtodrawconclusionswithoutreferencetotheevidence
whichtheexpertshavegiven.Wedonothavetheskillsrequiredtocarryoutanexpertexaminationofthe
exhibitswithouttheassistanceoftheexperts.Yourtaskistoreachaconclusionbaseduponanassessment
whatevidenceorpartsoftheevidencefromtheexpertsyouaccept,nottoreachanindependentjudgment
ofyourown.
Illustration Warning against self-expertise no experts giving evidence
Anissuehasarisenwhether.....[e.g.handwriting,voiceidentifcation].
Neithersidehascalledexpertevidencetoassistyou.Thisisanareainwhichyoushouldnotattemptto
reachanyconclusionbaseduponaninexpertcomparisonofyourown.Indecidingwhethertheprosecution
hasprovedthat....wastheauthorof....youshouldconcentrateonlyupontheevidenceof...
Sources
Archbold10-61/70b;BlackstoneF10.1/29
1SS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
280
Scarrott[1978]QB1016atpage1021
281
DPPv.Kilbourne[1973]AC729atpage746;DPPv.Hester[1973]AC296atpage315
282
Whitehead[1929]1KB99
283
TreasonAct1795,section1
284
PerjuryAct1911,section13
285
CriminalAttemptsAct1981,section2(2)(g)
286
[1995]1WLR1348,[1995]2CrAppR469atpage472
chapter 9: corroboration anD the
special neeD For caution
Introduction
1. Corroborationisrelevant,admissible
280
andcredible
281
evidencewhichisindependentofthesource
requiringcorroboration
282
,andwhichimplicatestheaccused.
2. Theformerrulerequiringadirectionthatthejuryshouldlookforcorroborationoftheevidenceofan
accompliceandofacomplainantinthetrialofasexualoffencewasabolishedbysection32Criminal
JusticeandPublicOrderAct1994.Theformerrulesrequiringcorroborationoftheevidenceofachild,
swornorunsworn,wereabolishedbytheCriminalJusticeAct1991,section101(2)andtheCriminal
JusticeAct1988,section34(2).
3. Corroborationisrequiredbystatuteonlyincasesoftreason
283
,perjury
284
andattemptstocommitsuch
offences
285
.
4. Whilecorroborationinthestrictsenseisnotrequiredtosupporttheevidenceofaccomplicesorothers
thecircumstancesmayneverthelessrequirethejudgetogiveawarningtothejuryabouttheneedfor
cautionintheabsenceofsupportingevidence.GuidancewasgivenbyLordTaylorCJinMakanjuola
286
:
Giventhattherequirementofacorroborationdirectionisabrogatedinthetermsofsection32(1),wehave
beeninvitedtogiveguidanceastothecircumstancesinwhich,asamatterofdiscretion,ajudgeoughtin
summing-uptoajuryurgecautioninregardtoaparticularwitnessandthetermsinwhichthatshouldbe
done.
Thecircumstancesandevidenceincriminalcasesareinfnitelyvariableanditisimpossibletocategorise
howajudgeshoulddealwiththem.Butitisclearthattocarryongivingdiscretionarywarningsgenerally
andinthesametermsaswerepreviouslyobligatorywouldbecontrarytothepolicyandpurposeoftheAct.
Whether,asamatterofdiscretion,ajudgeshouldgiveanywarningandifsoitsstrengthandtermsmust
dependuponthecontentandmannerofthewitnesssevidence,thecircumstancesofthecaseandtheissues
raised.Thejudgewilloftenconsiderthatnospecialwarningisrequiredatall.Where,howeverthewitness
hasbeenshowntobeunreliable,heorshemayconsideritnecessarytourgecaution.Inamoreextreme
case,ifthewitnessisshowntohavelied,tohavemadepreviousfalsecomplaints,ortobearthedefendant
somegrudge,astrongerwarningmaybethoughtappropriateandthejudgemaysuggestitwouldbewise
to look for some supporting material before acting on the impugned witnesss evidence. We stress that
theseobservationsaremerelyillustrativeofsome,notall,ofthefactorswhichjudgesmaytakeintoaccount
: CorroBoration and the speCial need for Caution
1So
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
inmeasuringwhereawitnessstandsinthescaleofreliabilityandwhatresponsetheyshouldmakeatthat
levelintheirdirectionstothejury.Wealsostressthatjudgesarenotrequiredtoconformtoanyformulaand
thisCourtwouldbeslowtointerferewiththeexerciseofdiscretionbyatrialjudgewhohastheadvantage
ofassessingthemannerofawitnesssevidenceaswellasitscontent.
Tosummarise:
(1) Section 32(1) abrogates the requirement to give a corroboration direction in respect of an alleged
accompliceoracomplainantofasexualoffence,simplybecauseawitnessfallsintooneofthosecategories.
(2) Itisamatterforthejudgesdiscretionwhat,ifanywarning,heconsidersappropriateinrespectofsuch
awitnessasindeedinrespectofanyotherwitnessinwhatevertypeofcase.Whetherhechoosestogivea
warningandinwhattermswilldependonthecircumstancesofthecase,theissuesraisedandthecontent
andqualityofthewitnesssevidence.
(3) Insomecases,itmaybeappropriateforthejudgetowarnthejurytoexercisecautionbeforeactingupon
theunsupportedevidenceofawitness.This will not be so simply because the witness is a complainant
of a sexual offence nor will it necessarily be so because a witness is alleged to be an accomplice. There
will need to be an evidential basis for suggesting that the evidence of the witness may be unreliable.
An evidential basis does not include mere suggestions by cross-examining counsel.
(4) Ifanyquestionarisesastowhetherthejudgeshouldgiveaspecialwarninginrespectofawitness,it
isdesirablethatthequestionberesolvedbydiscussionwithcounselintheabsenceofthejurybeforefnal
speeches.
(5) Where the judge does decide to give some warning in respect of a witness, it will be appropriate
to do so as part of the judges review of the evidence and his comments as to how the jury should
evaluate it rather than as a set-piece legal direction.
(6) Where some warning is required, it will be for the judge to decide the strength and terms of the
warning.Itdoesnothavetobeinvestedwiththewholeforidregimeoftheoldcorroborationrules.
(7) ..........
(8) Finally,thisCourtwillbedisinclinedtointerferewithatrialjudgesexerciseofhisdiscretionsaveina
casewherethatexerciseisunreasonableintheWednesburysense.[boldemphasisadded]
5. Wherethejuryisadvisedtolookforsupportingevidence,theevidencewhichiscapableofsupporting
thewitnessshouldbeidentifed.
287
6. TheneedtoconsideraMakanjuoladirectionapplieswhenevertheneedforspecialcautionisapparent.
Anaccusedmayhaveapurposeofhisowntoservebygivingevidencewhichimplicatesaco-accused.
288
InJones
289
,inwhicheachofthedefendantsinpartplacedblameontheother,AuldLJcommendedthe
Footnotes
287
B[2000]CrimLR181
288
Cheema[1994]1WLR147,[1994]98CrAppR195;Muncaster[1999]CrimLR409;Jones[2004]1CrAppR60,[2003]EWCA
Crim1966
289
Atparagraph47
1S7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
290
Beck[1982]1WLR461,[1982]74CrAppR221atpage228(defencemakingallegationsofimproprietyagainstwitnessesfor
theprosecution);ChanWai-Keung[1995]1WLR251(PC);[1995]2CrAppR194(prisonerawaitingsentencegivingevidence
inunrelatedcase);Ashgar[1995]1CrAppR223(defenceallegationthatprosecutionwitnesseswereprotectingoneoftheir
number);Pringle[2003]UKPC9andBenedetto[2003]1WLR1545,[2003]2CrAppR390(cellconfession);Spencer[1987]AC128
(patientsinasecurehospital)
291
[2005]EWCACrim105
292
Cannings[2004]1WLR2607,[2004]EWCACrim1;c.f.Kai-Whitewind[2005]2CrAppR457,[2005]EWCACrim1092(inwhich
evidencesupportingtheexpertsopinionastocauseofdeathwasfoundinpostmortemresults)
293
PetkarandFarquhar[2003]EWCACrim2668at75
294
KnowldenandKnowlden[1983]77CrAppR94;Cheema[1994]98CrAppR195
suggestionfromcounselthatinsuchcasesthejuryshouldbedirected(1)toconsiderthecasesofeach
defendantseparately,(2)theevidenceofeachdefendantwasrelevanttothecaseoftheother,(3)when
consideringtheco-defendantsevidencethejuryshouldbearinmindthatthewitnessmayhavean
interesttoserve,and(4)theevidenceofaco-defendantshouldotherwisebeassessedinthesamewayas
theevidenceofanyotherwitness.
7. Theneedforparticularcautionmayarisewhenawitnessevidencecouldbetaintedbyimproper
motive.
290
8. InStone
291
theCourtofAppealre-iteratedtheneedtoexaminetheparticularcircumstancesofthecase
beforereachingajudgmentinwhattermstherequirementforcautionshouldbeexpressed.
9. Casesofunexplainedinfantdeathmaygiverisetoseriousandrespectabledisagreementbetween
expertsastotheconclusionswhichcanbedrawnfrompostmortemfndings.Supportingevidence,
independentofexpertopinion,mayberequired.
292
Directions
Thetrialjudgeshoulddiscusswiththeadvocatestheneedforandthetermsofanycautionarydirectionit
isproposedmightbegiven.
Thedirectionwillbetailoredtopointouttothejurytheparticularriskofwhichtheyneedtobeaware
beforerelyingupontheevidencefromthetaintedsource.
Aparticularsensitivityariseswhendefendantsjointlychargedgiveevidenceimplicatingeachother.There
isariskthatadirectiontoexercisecautionbeforeactingontheevidenceofeitherdefendantwillhavethe
effectofdiminishingtheevidenceofbothdefendantsintheeyesofthejury.
293
Judgesareexpectedto
giveatleastthecustomaryclearwarningtoexaminetheevidenceofeachwithcarebecauseeachhas
ormayhaveaninterestofhisowntoserve.
294
ItmaybeimplicitthatifD1sdefenceistrueD2mustbeguilty.InordertoacquitD1thejuryneedonly
considerthatD1sevidencemaybetrue.Since,however,theprosecutionmustproveitscaseagainstD2
sothatthejuryissure,itdoesnotfollowthatanacquittalofD1mustleadtotheconvictionofD2.That
factmayneedemphasising.
1S8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Alternatively,D1sdenialofparticipationmaynotofitselfimplytheguiltofD2.D1saccusationagainst
D2maystandfreefromthedenialandentirelyunsupportedbyanyotherevidence.Ifso,theneedfor
cautionwhenconsideringtheaccusationagainstD2,nowalsoreliedonbytheprosecution,mightbe
expressedinmoretrenchantterms.
Illustration perjury corroboration required
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantgavefalseevidenceofalibiathistrialforrobbery.Insupportof
thatalibithedefendantcalledhisgirlfriend,A,tosupporthisaccountthat,atthetimeoftherobberyin
Manchester,theyweretravellinginScotland.Ahasnowgivenevidencethatthealibiwasfalse.Shehastold
youthatonthedayoftherobberysheandthedefendantwereinManchesteruntilthelateevening.The
defendantlefttheirfatinthemorning.Hereturnedinhiscaratabout4pm.Hetoldhertheyweregoingto
Scotlandforafewdaysholiday.DuringthejourneytoScotlandhetoldherhehadcommittedtherobbery.
Later,sheagreedtogivefalseevidenceathistrial.
Followingthedefendantsacquittalfortheoffenceofrobbery,thepolicediscoveredthatthedefendanthad
beenissuedwithasummonsforaspeedingoffence.Thatsummonsarosefromapicturetakenbyaspeed
cameranotfarfromthesceneoftherobbery,withinminutesaftertherobberyhadtakenplace.Further
inquiriesrevealedthatanhourbeforetherobberythedefendantandhiscarwerecapturedbyCCTVfootage
onagarageforecourtclosetothesceneoftherobbery.
Inordertoproveperjuryitisnotnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoestablishthatthedefendantwasoneof
therobbers.Theprosecutionmustprovethat(1)theevidenceofalibigivenbythedefendantathistrial
forrobberywasfalseand(2)thedefendantgavethatevidencedeliberately,knowingitwasfalse,ornot
believingittobetrue.
Thedefendanthaschosennottogiveevidencebeforeyou,butithasbeensuggestedtoAonhisbehalfthat
sheislying.
Youmustfrstdecidewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedsothatyouaresurethatthedefendantwasin
Manchester,andnotScotland,atthetimeoftherobbery.Inconsideringthatquestionyoumustnotact
on As evidence alone. The statute creating the offence provides that the evidence of a single witness is
insuffcienttoprovethatastatementmadeonoathbythedefendantwasfalse.Theremustbeevidence
independentofAwhichsupportsherevidencethatthedefendantwasinManchesterandnotinScotland.
The speed camera and CCTV evidence is capable of providing that support provided you are sure that
the devices did indeed capture events which occurred at the times and on the date recorded by them. I
shallremindyouoftheevidenceconcerningthosedevicesinamoment.Thedefendanthasnotsoughtto
challengethatthemanwiththecarintheCCTVfootageishimself.Itisforyoutodecidewhetherandto
whatextentthismaterialdoesinfactsupportAsevidence.
Ifyouaresurethattheevidencegivenbythedefendantathistrialforrobberywasfalsesince,asamatter
offact,hewasinManchesterandnotScotlandatthetimeoftherobbery,thenyoumustnextconsiderthe
secondquestionwhichiswhether,whenhegavethatevidence,thedefendantdeliberatelystatedwhathe
knewtobefalseordidnotbelievetobetrue.
1S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
295
Section73SeriousOrganisedCrimeandPoliceAct2005
Illustration importation of drugs - accomplice awaiting sentence gives evidence witness with an
interest to serve
A gave evidence for the prosecution. He has pleaded guilty to the offence of being concerned in the
importation of controlled drugs and is awaiting sentence. Following his arrest and interview A made
a written agreement
295
under which he agreed to assist the prosecution to bring his co-accused to trial.
Thatagreementhasculminatedinhimgivingevidenceimplicatingthedefendantintheimportation.The
agreementtowhichIhavereferredissanctionedbyanActofParliamentwhichspecifcallyempowersthe
courtwhichpassessentenceonAtogivecreditforhisassistancebypassingasentenceofreducedlength.
Thesentencingcourtwilldecidewhetherand,ifso,towhatextentAssentenceshouldbereducedinreturn
forhisassistanceinbringingotherstojustice.ItfollowsthatAhasapowerfulincentivetogiveevidencein
thiscase.ThisisafeatureofAscircumstanceswhichisplainlyrelevanttoyourconsiderationofhisevidence.
ThedefencecaseisthatAhasliedtoimprovehisownposition.Hehasamotivetoimplicatethedefendant
andhehasdoneitwithoutregardtothetruth.Ontheotherhand,theprosecutionhassubmittedthatAhas
acompellingincentivetotellthetruth.Ifhefailstotellthewholetruth,heislikelytobeexposedandhewill
notobtainthefruitsofhisco-operation.
Wheneverawitnesshasanadvantagetogainbygivingevidenceitisnecessarytoexaminehisevidencewith
particularcare.TheissuehereiswhetherAsevidenceistaintedbyadesiretosavehisownskin,irrespective
ofthetruthofwhathesays,orheismotivatedbyadesiretomakefulldisclosureofhiswrongdoinginreturn
foramorelenientsentence.Ultimately,thequestionforyoutoresolveiswhetheryouaresureAhastoldyou
thetruthabouttheinvolvementofthedefendant.Youmaynotfnditpossibletoreachaconcludedview
uponexactlywhatmotivatedAtoco-operateashedidandyoudonothaveto,providedthatyoubearwell
inmindtheriskthathisevidencepresents.
Awitnesswithapurposeofhisowntoservemaytellliesorhemaytellthetruth.IndecidingwhetherA
hastoldthetruthyoushouldconsidernotonlywhathesaidbuttheotherevidenceinthecase.Whereyou
fndsupportforAsevidencefromothersourcesyoumaybethemoredisposedtoacceptwhathesaid.The
prosecution asserts that there is other evidence which implicates the defendant and, therefore, supports
whatAtoldyouaboutthedefendantscomplicity.ItcomprisescovertsurveillanceofmeetingsbetweenA
andthedefendant,telephonetraffcbetweenthematsignifcanttimesandseveralanswersgivenbythe
defendantininterviewundercautionwhich,henowacknowledges,wereuntrue.
Iwillsummarisetheevidenceforyouinamoment.ItiscapableofsupportingAsevidencebutitisforyou
todecidewhetherandtowhatextentyouderiveassistancefromit.IfitdoessupportAsevidencethenyou
mayjudgeAsevidenceinthelightofthatsupport.YouareentitledtoactonAsevidencewhetheritis
independentlysupportedornot,providedthatyouhaveregardtotheneedforcaution.
1o0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration cutthroat defence each defendant with an interest to serve in blaming the other
D1 and D2 have given evidence in their own defence. Each of them has given evidence which is
unhelpful to the case of the other. D1 said.....D2 said....
Theevidenceofadefendantisevidenceinthecase.Ihaveexplainedthatyoushouldexaminethecaseof
eachdefendantseparatelyandinturn.WhenyouareconsideringthecaseofD1,theevidenceofD2willbe
relevant.WhenyouareconsideringthecaseofD2,theevidenceofD1willberelevant.Youmustassessthe
truthofeachdefendantsevidenceasyouwouldtheevidenceofanyotherwitnessbut,whenyoudothat,
bearinmindthateachofthemhashisowninteresttoconsiderwhengivingevidenceinhisowndefence.
Onlyifyouaresureofguiltshouldyouconvictthedefendantwhosecaseyouareconsidering.
Sources
Archbold4-404a/405;BlackstoneF5.1/15
1o1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
296
Vye[1993]1WLR471,[1993]97CrAppR134,approvedbytheHouseofLordsinAziz[1996]1AC41,[1995]2CrAppR478
297
[2008]EWCACrim3096
298
(Supra)
299
[2000]2CrAppR355
300
[1993]97CrAppRatpage139
chapter 10: gooD character oF the
DeFenDant
Introduction
1. Apersonisalmostalwaystobetreatedashavingagoodcharacterifheorshehasnoprevious
convictions.Itisthedutyofthetrialjudgetoinformthejuryoftherelevanceofthedefendantsgood
charactertotheissuestheyaretrying.
296
Itisamatterwhichshouldbediscussedwiththeadvocates
beforespeeches,particularlywhenthejudgehasinmindaqualifeddirection.
2. Goodcharacterisrelevanttocredibilityaswellastopropensity.Credibilityisinissuebothwhen
thedefendanthasgivenevidenceandwhen,althoughhehasnotgivenevidence,hereliesuponan
accountgivenininterview.Propensityisinissuewhetherornotthedefendanthasgivenevidenceor
anaccountininterview.
3. InMoustakim
297
,theCourtofAppealallowedanappealonthesolegroundthatthetrialjudges
directionuponthedefendantsgoodcharacterwasinsuffcientlyemphatic.TheCourtobserved,
followingVye
298
andLloyd
299
,that:
1. There is no explicit positive direction that the jury should take the appellants good character into
accountinherfavour.
2.Thejudgesversionofthefrstlimbofthedirectiondidnotsaythathergoodcharactersupportedher
credibility.Thejudgeonlysaidthatshewasentitledtosaythatshewasasworthyofbeliefasanyone.It
went,hesaid,tothequestionwhetherthejurybelievedheraccount.
3.Thejudgesversionofthesecondlimbofthedirectiondidnotsaythathergoodcharactermightmean
thatshewaslesslikelythanotherwisemightbethecasetocommitthecrime.Hesaidthatshewasentitledto
haveitarguedthatshewasperhapslesslikelytohavecommittedthecrime.Theuseofthewordperhaps
isasignifcantdilutionoftherequireddirection.
4.Inthejudgesdirectioneachlimbisexpressedaswhatthedefendantisentitledtosayorargue,notasit
shouldhavebeenadirectionfromthejudgehimself.
5. However,thetermsinwhichthejuryaredirectedwilldependupondevelopmentsintheevidencein
theparticularcase.InVye
300
LordTaylorCJsaid:
10: good CharaCter of the defendant
1o2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Havingstatedthegeneralrule,however,werecogniseitmustbeforthetrialjudgeineachcasetodecide
how he tailors his direction to the particular circumstances. He would probably wish to indicate, as is
commonlydone,thatgoodcharactercannotamounttoadefence....Providedthatthejudgeindicatesto
thejurythetworespectsinwhichgoodcharactermayberelevant,i.e.credibilityandpropensity,thiscourt
willbeslowtocriticiseanyqualifyingremarkshemaymakebaseduponthefactsoftheindividualcase.
6. Thecircumstancesinwhichadditionalremarkswillbeappropriatewillvary.ThecourtinVyehadin
mindtwoparticularexamplesofcaseswhereemphasisorqualifcationmaybeappropriate.First,where
alongservingemployeeischargedforthefrsttimewiththeftfromhisemployer,thepropensitylimb
mayrequireemphasis.Secondly,thegoodcharacterofadefendantwhoadmitsmanslaughtermayhave
limitedrelevancetotheissuewhetherheisguiltyofmurderalthough,eveninsuchacase,propensity
mayberelevanttotheissueofintent.
7. Qualifyingremarkswillbeappropriatewheretheevidencerevealsthatwhilethedefendanthasno
previousconvictionsthereisindisputableevidenceofcriminalconductbyhim.InAziz
301
LordSteynsaid:
Primafaciethedirectionsmustbegiven.Andthejudgewilloftenbeabletoplaceafairandbalanced
picturebeforethejurybygivingdirectionsinaccordancewithVyeandthenaddingwordsofqualifcation
concerningotherprovedorpossiblecriminalconductofthedefendantwhichemergedduringthetrial.
On the other hand, if it would make no sense to give character directions in accordance with Vye, the
judgemayinhisdiscretiondispensewiththem.Subjecttotheseviews,Idonotbelievethatitisdesirable
togeneraliseaboutthisessentiallypracticalsubjectwhichmustbelefttothegoodsenseoftrialjudges.It
isworthadding,however,thatwheneveratrialjudgeproposestogiveadirection,whichisnotlikelytobe
anticipatedbycounsel,thejudgeshouldfollowthecommendablepracticeofinvitingsubmissionsonhis
proposeddirections.
Directions
FortherequirementsofthestandardgoodcharacterdirectionseeMoustakimabove.Theapplicationofthe
principlesisnotalwaysstraightforwardinpractice.Theexerciseofjudgementastothetermsinwhichthe
goodcharacterdirectionwillbeframedusuallyariseswherethedefendantarguesthatheshouldbetreatedas
beingofgoodcharacternotwithstandingthepresenceof(usuallyminorand/orspent)convictionsorwhere
adefendantwithpreviousconvictionsseeksafavourabledirectionastopropensity.Thisproblemarosein
Gray
302
.Thetrialjudgehaddeclinedtogivethepropensitylimbofthegoodcharacterdirectioninatrialfor
murderwherethedefendanthadhimselfintroducedhisconvictionsfordrivingwithexcessalcoholandlinked
drivingoffences.TheCourtheldthatthedirectionshouldhavebeengiven.RixLJcarriedoutanexamination
oftheauthoritiesandconcludedwithsomehelpfulguidance:
57.Inourjudgmenttheauthoritiesdiscussedaboveentitleustostatethefollowingprinciplesasapplicable
inthiscontext:
(1)Theprimaryruleisthatapersonofpreviousgoodcharactermustbegivenafulldirectioncovering
bothcredibilityandpropensity.Wheretherearenofurtherfactstocomplicatetheposition,sucha
directionismandatoryandshouldbeunqualifed(Vye,Aziz).

Footnotes
301
[1995]2CrAppRatpages483and488-489
302
1o3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
303
[1994]CrimLR205
304
[1995]2CrAppR84
305
[1994]CrimLR833
306
[2001]1WLR1519:DefendantadmittedbeingadealerincocaineandsettingoutwithanarmedpossetoexactretributiononV
forsellingthegangfakecocaine.
307
[2002]2CrAppR42:Defendantchargedwithimportingcocaineadmittedbeingagoldsmuggler.
308
Miah[1997]2CrAppR12;Lloyd[2000]2CrAppR355;Scranage[2001]EWCACrim1171
309
M(CP)(PracticeNote)[2009]2CrAppR54(3)
(2)Ifadefendanthasapreviousconvictionwhich,eitherbecauseofitsageoritsnature,mayentitle
himtobetreatedasofeffectivegoodcharacter,thetrialjudgehasadiscretionsototreathim,andifhe
doessothedefendantisentitledtoaVyedirection(passim);but
(3) Where the previous conviction can only be regarded as irrelevant or of no signifcance in
relation to the offence charged, that discretion ought to be exercised in favour of treating the
defendant as of good character (H
303
, Durbin
304
, and, to the extent that it cited H with apparent
approval,Aziz.)InsuchacasethedefendantisagainentitledtoaVyedirection.Itwouldseemtobe
consistentwithprinciple(4)belowthat,wherethereisroomforuncertaintyastohowadefendantof
effectivegoodcharactershouldbetreated,ajudgewouldbeentitledtogiveanappropriatelymodifed
Vyedirection.
(4)Whereadefendantofpreviousgoodcharacter,whetherabsoluteor,wewouldsuggest,effective,
hasbeenshownattrial,whetherbyadmissionorotherwise,tobeguiltyofcriminalconduct,theprima
facieruleofpracticeistodealwiththisbyqualifyingaVyedirectionratherthanbywithholdingit(Vye,
Durbin,Aziz);but
(5) In such a case, there remains a narrowly circumscribed residual discretion to withhold a good
character direction in whole, or presumably in part, where it would make no sense, or would be
meaninglessorabsurdoraninsulttocommonsense,todootherwise(Zoppola-Barrazza
305
anddictain
DurbinandAziz).
(6)Approvedexamplesoftheexerciseofsucharesidualdiscretionarenotcommon.Zoppola-Barrazza
isone.Shaw
306
isanother.LordSteyninAzizappearstohaveconsideredthatapersonofprevious
goodcharacterwhoisshownbeyonddoubttohavebeenguiltyofseriouscriminalbehavioursimilar
totheoffencechargedwouldforfeithisrighttoanydirection(at53B).OntheotherhandLordTaylors
manslaughter/murderexampleinVye(whichwascitedagaininDurbin)showsthateveninthecontext
of serious crime it may be crucial that a critical intent separates the admitted criminality from that
charged.
(7)Adirectionshouldneverbemisleading.Wherethereforeadefendanthaswithheldsomethingof
hisrecordsothatotherwiseatrialjudgeisnotinapositiontorefertoit,thedefendantmayforfeitthe
moreample,ifqualifed,directionwhichthejudgemighthavebeenabletogive(Martin
307
).
Theessenceofthestandarddirectionisthatgoodcharacterisrelevanttocredibilityandpropensity,and
shouldbeconsideredinthoserespectsinfavourofthedefendant,butitisforthejurytoassesswhatweight
theygivetoit.
308
Wherethejudgeagreestotreatthedefendantasofgoodcharacterthefullgoodcharacterdirectionshould
begiven.
309

1o4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Inajointtrial,whereonedefendantisofgoodcharacterandtheothernot,adefendantofgoodcharacteris
entitledtothefullstandarddirection.
310
Ifadefendantofgoodcharacterhasbeeninterviewedbutelectsnottogiveevidence,thegoodcharacter
directionshouldbegiven.Thereisnoinconsistencybetweenthegoodcharacterdirection,aliesdirectionand
adirectionundersection35CJPOA1994.
311
Illustration standard direction relevance to defendants credibility and propensity good
character is a positive feature of the defendants case weight is for the jury
You have heard that the defendant is a man in his middle years with no previous convictions. Good
characterisnotadefencetothechargesbutitisrelevanttoyourconsiderationofthecaseintwoways.
First,thedefendanthasgivenevidence.Hisgoodcharacterisapositivefeatureofthedefendantwhichyou
shouldtakeintoaccountwhenconsideringwhetheryouacceptwhathetoldyou.Secondly,thefactthatthe
defendanthasnotoffendedinthepastmaymakeitlesslikelythatheactedasisnowallegedagainsthim.
Ithasbeensubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantthatforthefrsttimeinhislifehehasbeenaccusedofa
crimeofdishonesty.Heisnotthesortofmanwhowouldbelikelytocasthisgoodcharacterasideinthis
way.Thatisamattertowhichyoushouldpayparticularattention.
However,thejudgementswhatweightshouldbegiventothedefendantsgoodcharacterandtheextentto
whichitassistsonthefactsofthisparticularcaseareforyoutomake.Inmakingthatassessmentyouare
entitledtotakeaccountofeverythingyouhaveheardabouthim.
Illustration qualifed direction convictions for unlike offences defendant relies on lack of
propensity
Thedefendanthaspreviousconvictionsforroadtraffcoffences,includingaconvictionfordrivingwithexcess
alcoholinhisbody.Thedefendantcannotthereforeputhimselfforwardtoyouasamanofgoodcharacter.
Ontheotherhand,itisrightlypointedoutthatthedefendanthasneverbeenconvictedofanoffenceof
violence.Tothatextent,itissubmittedthattheallegationnowmadeagainsthimisoutofcharacter.
Whetherthedefendantisthesortofmanwhowouldbehaveviolentlyandintemperisrelevanttoyour
considerationofthecaseagainsthim.Theabsenceinthedefendantsrecordofanysuchbehaviourisa
featureofthedefendantwhichyoushouldconsiderinhisfavour.Secondly,youmayconcludethatwhen
youconsiderhisevidenceyoushouldtreathimasmanwithoutarecordfordishonestyand,onthataccount,
morelikelytobeatruthfulwitness.However,theweightwhichyouattachtothedefendantscharacter
isamatterforyourjudgementandinassessingitssignifcanceyouareentitledtotakeaccountofallthe
evidenceyouhaveheardabouthim.Goodcharactercannot,ofcourse,amounttoadefence.
Footnotes
310
Vye[1993]1WLR471,[1993]97CrAppR134;Houlden[1994]99CrAppR244
311
Napper[1996]CrimLR591perLordTaylorCJ
1oS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration good character evidence emerging in the trial relevant to credibility and propensity
qualifed direction
Thedefendantisayoungmanwhohasneverbeenconvictedofacriminaloffence.Goodcharacterisnota
defencetothechargesbutitisrelevanttoyourconsiderationofthecaseintwoways.First,thedefendant
hasgivenevidence.Hispreviousgoodcharacterisapositivefeatureofthedefendantwhichyoushouldtake
intoaccountwhenconsideringwhetheryouacceptwhathetoldyou.Secondly,thefactthatthedefendant
hasnotoffendedinthepastmaymakeitlesslikelythatheactedasisnowallegedagainsthim.
However, you are not expected to make a judgement about the defendants previous good character in
isolationfromtheevidenceyouhaveheard.Thedefendantadmitsthatwhenhewasinterviewedunder
cautionhetoldpersistentliesabouthiswhereaboutsatthetimeoftheincident.Notuntilthefnalinterview
didheadmithispresence.Secondly,thedefendantsaidininterview,andhasrepeatedtoyouinevidence,
thathewasoneofthegroupwhochasedV1andV2downthestreetshoutingthreats.Whathedeniesis
thatwhentheycaughtupwithV1andV2hetookanypartintheassault.
The decisions whether the defendants previous good character assists you in the circumstances of the
presentcaseand,ifso,whatweightshouldbegiventoitareforyoutomake.
Sources
1oo
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 11: baD character oF DeFenDant
Explanation of Contents
Whensummingup,thetrialjudgewillinformthejuryforwhatpurpose(s)thebadcharacterevidencemay
beusedandwillgivedirectionsastothewayinwhichtheevidenceshouldbeapproached.Theevidence
mayhavebecome,andfrequentlydoesbecome,relevantforreasonsotherthanthosecontemplatedby
thegatewayofadmission.Acommonoccurrenceistheadmissionofbadcharacterevidenceuponthe
applicationoftheprosecutiontoestablisharelevantpropensitywhich,byreasonofthenatureofthe
convictionsadmitted,isboundtoaffectthejurysapproachtothecredibilityandreliabilityofthedefendants
evidencegenerally.Unlesstheevidencehasalsobeenadmittedundersection101(1)(g)thereisnogateway
throughwhichtheprosecutioncouldhaveadducedevidencesimplytounderminethedefendants
creditworthinessbut,onceadmittedthroughagateway,theevidencemay
312
beconsideredforthatpurpose.
Relevanceisalwaysamatterforthetrialjudge.Thiswillbeparticularlysowhen,havingdifferentintereststo
serve,thepartiesagreetotheadmissionoftheevidenceundersection101(1)(a).Thepurposesforwhichbad
characterevidencemay,bythetimeofthesummingup,havebecomerelevantinclude:
(1) Judgingthecredibilityofthedefendantsevidenceand/orcase;
(2) Judgingwhetherthedefendantsattackonanotherpersonscharacterisworthyofbelief;
(3) Explainingthebackground;
(4) Establishingapropensityordispositiontocommittheoffencecharged;
(5) Providingevidenceofsystem;
(6) Identifyingthedefendantssignatureontheoffencecharged;
(7) Establishingthedefendantspropensitytobeuntruthful;
(8) Rebuttingadefenceputforwardorimpliedbythedefendant;
(9) Underminingtheaccusatoryaccountofaco-accused;
(10) Correctingafalseimpressioncreatedbythedefendant.
Accordingly,whilethissectionisarranged,aftertheGeneralIntroductionandDirectionsGenerally,under
gatewayheadings,thisisforconvenienceonlyanddoesnotimplyanyintentiontoconfnerelevancetothe
gatewayofadmission.
Footnotes
312
SeediscussionatDirections(i)PropensitytoCommitOffencesoftheKindChargedbelow
1o7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
313
NotnecessarilyanearlieroccasionseeA[2009]EWCACrim513,inwhichlaterbadcharacterevidenceestablishedadisposition
tocommitsexualoffencesofakindallegedtohavebeencommittedbyhimmanyyearspreviously
314
Renda[2005]EWCACrim2826
315
ForadiscussionofthemeaningofbadcharacterandrelatedissuesseeJSBTrainingWebsiteCriminaleLibraryProfessorDavid
OrmerodTheCriminalJusticeAct2003:EvidenceofBadCharacter,August2009,pages30-49
316
Foradiscussionoftherequirementsofnotice,adequacyofnoticeandproofofthebadcharacterreliedonseeOrmerodThe
CriminalJusticeAct2003:EvidenceofBadCharacter,August2009,pages4-19
317
Exceptthatsection78doesnotapplytoadefendantsapplicationundersection101(1)(e)
General Introduction
Defnition of bad character
1. Badcharacter,forthepurposeofsection101CriminalJusticeAct2003,isevidenceofmisconduct
onother
313
occasions,otherthanthatwhichhastodowiththeallegedfactsoftheoffencewith
whichthedefendantischarged(section98(a)),orisevidenceofmisconductinconnectionwith
theinvestigationorprosecutionofthatoffence(section98(b)).Misconductisthecommissionofan
offenceorotherreprehensiblebehaviour(section112).Thewordreprehensibleconnotesculpabilityor
blameworthiness.
314
2. Ifthemisconductallegedhastodowiththeoffenceitmaystillbeadmissibleasevidencerelevantto
proofthatthedefendantcommittedtheoffence.
315
SeebelowDistinguishingbetweenevidenceof
misconductonotheroccasionsandevidencewhichhastodowiththeoffencecharged.
Procedural requirements
3. ThepartyseekingtoadduceevidenceofadefendantsbadcharactermustgivenoticeunderCPR35.
316
The gateways to admissibility

4. Evidenceofmisconductbythedefendantmayhavebeenadmittedinevidenceforanyofthereasons
providedbysection101(1)CriminalJusticeAct2003:(a)byagreement,(b)bythedefendanthimself(c)as
importantexplanatoryevidence,(d)asrelevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetweenprosecutionand
defence,(e)asevidenceofsubstantialprobativevalueinrelationtoanimportantmatterinissuebetween
defendants,(f)tocorrectafalseimpressiongivenbythedefendant,(g)becausethedefendanthasmade
anattackonanotherscharacter.
Handling of bad character issues
5. Thesequencetobefollowedis:
Judgedecidesadmissibility
Judgedecideswhethertheevidenceshouldneverthelessbeexcludedundersection101(3)CJA
2003(gateway(d)or(g))orsection78PACE1984
317
Judgegivesreasonsundersection110CJA2003
Judge,whenappropriate,decideswhetherthecaseshouldbestoppedbecausetheevidenceis
contaminatedundersection107CJA2003
11: Bad CharaCter of the defendant
1o8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Judgediscusseswiththeadvocatesatthecloseoftheevidenceforwhatpurposesthebad
characterevidencemaybeconsideredbythejury
318
Judgedirectsthejuryinsummingupupontherelevanceandlimitationsoftheevidence
Jurydecidesonweightandvalueoftheevidenceindeterminingtheissueofrelevanceand,
dependinguponthecentralityoftheissue,guilt
Purpose for which evidence may be used
6. Badcharacterevidence,onceadmitted,maybeusedbythejuryforanypurposeforwhichitisrelevant.
319
Whensummingup,thetrialjudgestaskistoexplaintothejuryforwhatpurpose(s)theevidencemay
(and,perhaps,maynot)beused.
320
7. Thus,thejudgemaybedirectingthejurythatthebadcharacterevidenceisrelevant,dependingontheir
view,toanyofthematterslistedinthefrstpageofthisChapter.
8. Thepurposeofthelegislationistoassisttheevidence-basedconvictionoftheguilty,withoutputting
thosewhoarenotguiltyatriskofconvictionbyprejudice.
321
Footnotes
318
Discussionisnecessaryevenandperhapsparticularlywhentheevidencewasadmittedbyagreement.SeeMarsh[2009]EWCA
Crim2696toavoidmisunderstanding
319
Highton[2005]1WLR3472;[2005]EWCACrim1985;Edwards[2006]1WLR1524;[2005]EWCACrim1813;Campbell[2007]1
WLR2798;[2007]EWCACrim1472
320
Edwards(supra)at3;Campbell(supra)at37-38
321
Hanson[2005]1WLR3169;[2005]EWCACrim824
1o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
322
[2008]EWCACrim837
323
Seee.g.Morris[1995]2CrAppR69
324
[2007]EWCACrim1499
Distinguishing between evidence of misconduct on other occasions and evidence
which has to do with the offence charged
1. Thejuryshouldbegivenappropriatelegaldirectionsastothepurposeforwhichtheevidencemaybe
usedandthosedirectionsmayneedtoincludeawarningastoitslimitations.Accordingly,thejudgewill
needtodistinguishbetween:
(i) Evidenceofmisconductwhichhastodowiththeoffencecharged(section98(a)CJA2003)andis
admissibleatcommonlawbecauseitisrelevant;and
(ii) Evidenceofmisconductwhichrequiresagatewaytoadmissibility(section101(1)CJA2003).
2. Thedistinctionbetweenthetwoclassesofevidencecontinuestocauseproblems.InAnderson
322
the
defendantwaschargedwithconspiracytosupplythecontrolledclassAdrugcocaine.Asubstantial
quantityofthedrugwasfoundinafatusedbyhim.Thedefendantdeniedknowledgeofthedrug
althoughhisfngerprintwasfoundonaboxinwhichpartofthedrugwasstored.Theprosecutionsought
toadduceevidencethatinJuly,amonthbeforehisarrest,thedefendanthadbeenstoppedinacarin
whichtherewasfoundasubstantialquantityofMannitol,asubstancewithperfectlylegitimateusesbut
whichcouldalsobeused,andwasusedbysomedealers,forcuttingcocaine.Itwasnot,however,the
prosecutioncasethattheMannitolwasormayhavebeenintendedforcuttingthecocainefoundinthe
defendantsfat.TheCourtofAppealapprovedtheadmissionoftheevidenceastendingtoundermine
thedefenceofinnocentassociationwiththeboxesofthedruginthefollowingterms(perLathamLJ):
12.....theinferencethatthejurywerebeingaskedtodrawwasthathehadMannitolforanefariousdrug-
relatedpurposeinJuly.Itwasthereforeevidencerelatingtomisconductwithinthemeaningofsection98.
Asfarasthegatewaythroughwhichitcouldgobeforethejurywasconcerneditwasquiteclearly,inour
judgment,relevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetweenthedefendantandtheprosecutionwithinthe
meaningofsection101(1)(d).
3. Theimportantmatterinissuewasnotpropensitybutknowledgeofthecontentsoftheboxes.Before
thejurycouldusetheMannitolevidenceforthatpurposetheywouldhavetodrawtheinferencethat
itwasindeedintendedforanefariousdrug-relatedpurposeand,therefore,thatitwasbadcharacter
evidence.Theprinciplewhichemergesisthatifthepurposeofadducingtheevidenceistodemonstrate
misconductonanotheroccasionagatewaymustbeopened.Ifthejuryareinvitedtotreattheevidence
asevidenceofmisconductonanotheroccasionorthereisariskthattheywilldosoabadcharacter
directionwillberequired.
4. Beforethe2003Act,evidenceofpossessionoflargequantitiesofcashmightbeadmittedinsupportof
aprosecutioncaseofpossessionofdrugswithintenttosupplyifitwasrelevanttotheissueofintent,but
notadmissibleifwasevidencesimplyofpastcriminalconductand,therefore,ofpropensity.
323
5. InGraham
324
thecomplaintwasmadeonappeal,post-2003Act,thatthetrialjudgefailedinhis
directionstothejurytoilluminatethedistinctionbetweenhispossessionofcash(1)asevidenceofan
historicalcriminaltransactionand(2)asevidencethattheappellantwasacurrentdrugdealer.ToulsonLJ,
whileacknowledgingthattheCourthadnotreceivedargumentupontheimpactofthe2003Act,said:
170
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
25....UnderthebadcharacterprovisionsofthatAct,conductshowingthatadefendanthadsupplieddrugs
inthepastwouldbeadmissibleasgoingtoshowpropensity.Ifthejuryissatisfedthatthetrueexplanation
forthepresenceofmoneyonadefendantatthetimeofhisarrestisthatitrepresentstheproceedsofdrug
dealing,thedistinctionbetweentreatingit(a)asevidencethatheisadrugdealer,or(b)asevidencethat
hehasdealtindrugsandhasapropensitytodoso,isfne.Inmanycasesitwouldbeadistinctionwithout
a practical difference. As at present advised, we think, generally speaking, that it would be needlessly
complicatingforajudgetohavetoexploresuchadistinctioningivingdirectionstoajury.Therewould
also be something highly artifcial in the prosecution having to make an application under the Criminal
JusticeActfortheadmissionofsuchevidenceasgoingtoshowpropensitywhentheevidenceisalready
admissible.
ThispassagewassubsequentlycitedbytheCourtofAppeal,refusingleave,inGreenandOthers
325
,
althoughinthatcaseleavewasrefusedonthespecifcgroundthatthetrialjudgehadadmittedthe
evidenceasrelevanttotheoffencescharged.Shehaddirectedthejurythattheevidenceofacriminal
lifestylewasonlytobeconsideredbythemif(i)theyrejectedthedefendantsexplanationsand(ii)it
couldbeaccountedforonlybyhisinvolvementintheconspiracieschargedintheindictment(i.e.as
underthepre-2003Actrule,theevidencewasdirectlyrelevanttotheoffencecharged).
6. ToulsonLJsobservationsinGrahamseemtosuggestthatevidencethatthedefendantisacurrentdrug
dealerisadmissibleasevidenceofmisconductwhichhastodowiththeallegedfactsoftheoffencewith
whichthedefendantischargedundersection98(a)oftheAct,ratherthanasevidenceofmisconduct
onotheroccasionsrelevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetweenthedefendantandtheprosecution
undersection101(1)(d).Evidenceofpossessionofasubstantialsumofcashmayhavetodowiththefacts
oftheoffencechargedif,forexample,itrepresentstheproceedsofasupplywithwhichthedefendantis
charged,oritrepresentsthedefendantsfundforapurchaserelevanttoachargeofconspiracyorbeing
concerned.But,wheretheprosecutionisnotallegingthatthepossessionofcashrelatestotheoffence
charged,orwheretheprosecutionisnotconcedingthatthesourceofthemoneyishonest,itslikely
purposeistodemonstrate,byconductonotheroccasions,thatthedefendantisacurrentdrugdealer,
whichissimplymorecogentevidenceofpropensity.
7. Theimportancetothetrialjudgeofthedistinctionbetweenevidenceadmittedunderthecommonlaw
ashavingtodowiththeoffencechargedandevidenceofmisconductonotheroccasionsisthat(1)
thelatterrequiresagatewayforadmissionand(2)iftheevidenceisadmitted,abadcharacterdirection
isrequired.InGrahamthechargewaspossessionwithintenttosupply.Thedefendantwasfoundin
possessionofecstasy,andsecretedinhisfatwas3,000incash.Theprosecutioncasewasthatthecash
representedtheproceedsofcurrentdealing.Itissuggestedthattheevidencewasclearlyadmissible
undersection101(1)(d).Therewasindeedafnedistinctionbetweentheconclusionsthatthedefendant
wasacurrentdrugdealer,ontheonehand,andthathehadatsometimeinthepastdealtindrugs,on
theother.However,thequalifcationforadmissibilitywas,ineitherevent,asection101(1)gateway.In
somecasesthedistinctionbetweenthecompetingconclusionsmaybesignifcanttothetaskthejuryhas
toperform.Where,forexample,thereisanadmissionofpastdealingbutadenialofcurrentdealing,a
carefulbadcharacterdirectionmayberequired.
326
Footnotes
325
[2009]EWCACrim1688
326
SeealsoProfessorDavidOrmerodTheCriminalJusticeAct2003:EvidenceofBadCharacterAugust2009,JSBwebsite
(Criminal/ELibrary),paragraphs5.29-5.44
171
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
327
See(2)Section101(1)(d)EvidenceRelevanttoanImportantMatterinIssueBetweentheProsecutionandDefenceDirections(i)
PropensitytoCommitOffencesoftheKindChargedand(ii)PropensityforUntruthfulnessbelow
328
SeealsoChapter12CrossAdmissibilityandDirections(iii)DefendantsSignaturebelow.Ifthejudgeisgivingasimilarfact
directioninwhichthejuryisinvitedtoinferguiltfromanallegedcourseofconduct,afullbadcharacterdirectionmaynotbe
requiredandamodifeddirectionwarningagainstprejudicewillsuffce.Once,however,itbecomesapparentthatthejurymay
legitimatelytreatsimilarfactevidencewhichtheyhavefoundprovedasevidenceofpropensitytocommitanotheroffencewith
whichthedefendantischarged,thewarningastoperspectiveandproportionalitywillberequired.
Directions Generally
Wheneverbadcharacterhasbeenadmittedinevidence,including,andperhapsespecially,wherethe
evidencehasbeenadmittedbyagreement,thejudgeshoulddiscusswiththeadvocatesbeforespeeches
thepurposesforwhichthejurymayusetheevidence.Thequestionwhetherthejurymaybedirectedthat
badcharacterevidenceadmittedthroughgateways(a),(b),(c),(d),and(f)canbeconsideredwhentheyare
assessingthecredibilityofthedefendantsevidenceisdiscussedbelow.
327
Thebadcharacterevidencemaytaketheformofcriminalconvictionsorevidenceofbehaviourwhichhasnot
resultedinanycriminalchargeorconviction(evenevidencewhichhaspreviouslyledtoanacquittal).Thebad
characterevidenceshouldbeidentifedand,whereitisdisputed,theextentofthedisputesummarised.
Itisnotusuallynecessarytoexplainthetechnicalitiesofadmissionoftheevidence,butitisnecessaryto
explainforwhatpurposestheevidencemaybeusedinitsappropriatefactualcontext,andthatitisnottobe
usedasmereprejudice.Itmaybeappropriatetowarnthejuryagainstusingtheevidenceforaninappropriate
purpose.Forexample,evidenceadmittedbecausethedefendanthasmadeanattackonanotherpersons
charactermaynotbesuffcienttoestablishapropensitytocommitthecrimecharged.Wherethereisarisk
thatthejurymightusetheevidenceinappropriately,theyshouldbetoldbothofthelimitedpurposeforwhich
theevidencecanbeusedanddirectedthattheevidencecannototherwisesupporttheprosecutioncase.
Thejuryshouldbedirectedthattheyshouldmakethefollowingdecisions:
Wherethebadcharacterisdisputed,whethertheyaresurethebadcharacterisprovedand,ifso,to
whatextent
Whetherandtowhatextentthebadcharacterevidencehastheeffectforwhichthepartyrelyingon
itcontends(e.g.explainingthebackground,provingapropensity,undermininganattackonanother
personscharacter)
Whentheevidenceiscapableofsupportingtheassertionofguilt,whetherandtowhatextentthe
badcharacterevidenceassiststhemtodecidethatissue
Thejuryshouldberemindedofthedefencecaseuponeachoftheseissues.
Thejuryshouldbeassistedtoplacethebadcharacterevidencewithintheperspectiveoftheevidenceasa
whole.Theyshouldberemindedthatbadcharacterevidenceismerelypartoftheevidenceinthecaseand
doesnotofitselfproveguilt.Towhicheverissuethebadcharacterevidenceisrelevant,thejuryshouldbe
carefulnottoplacesomuchemphasisonitthatthedefendantwouldbeunfairlyprejudiced.
Adirectiontotreattheevidenceofbadcharacterproportionatelymaynot,however,beappropriatewhere
theprosecutionscasedependsexclusively,oralmostexclusively,uponthesimilarityofothermisconductby
thedefendanttoprovethecurrentcharge,orwheretheprosecutioncaseisthathelefthissignatureonthe
offencecharged.
328
172
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(1) Section 101 (1) (c): Important Explanatory Evidence
Introduction
1. BeforetheCriminalJusticeAct2003backgroundevidencewasadmissibletoassistthejuryinmaking
senseoftheeventstheywereconsidering.Itwascommonlyadmittedtodemonstratethatactsof
violencewerecommittedagainstahistoryofanimosity,jealousyorcontrollingconduct.
329
2. Judgeswouldexcludeaspectsofsuchevidenceundersection78PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984if
itsprejudicialeffectoutweigheditsprobativevalue.
3. Inthedaysbeforeevidence
ofpropensitywasadmissible,theCourtofAppealhadwarnedthatjudges
shouldnotadmitpropensityevidenceintheguiseofbackgroundevidence.
330
4. Backgroundevidencewillcontinuetobeadmittedundersection101(1)(c)asimportantexplanatory
evidence.
331
However,theambitofsection101(1)(c)isnotconfnedtothehistoryofarelationship
betweenthedefendantandanother.InChohan
332
anidentifyingwitnessknewthedefendantasa
drugdealer.Thatfactsupportedtheaccuracyofheridentifcation.Thebasisofherknowledgeofthe
defendantwascorrectlyadmittedasimportantexplanatoryevidence.Itexplainedwhythewitnesswas
ableconfdentlytoprovideevidenceofidentitybyrecognition.
333
5. Itremainsimportant,however,toascertainwhethertheevidenceadmittedundergateway(c)iscapable
ofbeingusedbythejuryforanyotherpurpose.If,forexample,theevidenceisadditionallyrelevant
tosomeothermatterinissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefence(e.g.propensityforviolence
towardstheallegedvictim)thejurywillneedanexplanation.Ifitisnot,itwillbenecessarytogivea
specifcwarningthatinnootherrespectcantheevidenceassisttheprosecutioncase.
6. InDavis
334
theCourtofAppealagainwarnedagainstadmittingevidenceasexplanatory,withlimitedor
noprobativevalueassuch,whentherealpurposeistosuggestpropensitywithoutqualifyingthrough
thesection101(1)(d)gateway.
7. Adiscussionwiththeadvocatesbeforespeechesisrequiredbeforethejudgedecideshowthebad
characterevidencewillbelefttothejury.
Footnotes
329
Pettman2May1985unreportedperPurchasLJ;Whereitisnecessarytoplacebeforethejuryevidenceofpartofacontinual
backgroundofhistoryrelevanttotheoffencechargedintheindictmentandwithoutthetotalityofwhichtheaccountplaced
beforethejurywouldbeincompleteorincomprehensible,then,thefactthatthewholeaccountinvolvesincludingevidence
establishingthecommissionofanoffencewithwhichtheaccusedisnotchargedisnotitselfagroundforexcludingthe
evidence.;
330
Dolan[2003]1CrAppR281,[2003]EWCACrim1859at27
331
Seesection102,Evidenceisimportantexplanatoryevidenceif(a)withoutitthecourtorjurywouldfnditimpossibleordiffcult
properlytounderstandotherevidenceinthecase,and(b)itsvalueforunderstandingthecaseasawholeissubstantial.
332
OneoftheconjoinedappealsinEdwards[2006]1CrAppR31;[2005]EWCACrim181562-78
333
Theevidencewasprobablyadmissiblealsoundergateway(d),identifcationbeinganimportantmatterinissue.
334
[2008]EWCACrim1156
173
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Illustration relationship between defendant and complainant relevance of course of relationship
to issues in the trial background provides evidence of propensity supporting evidence warning of
limits of background and propensity evidence
YouhaveheardevidenceofthehistoryoftherelationshipbetweenthedefendantandMissA.Itisrelevant
because,ifyouacceptit,itexplainsthattheeventsof....didnottakeplaceinisolation.Youareentitledto
take the background of the relationship into account when deciding what happened on...There are two
aspectsofthebackgroundonwhichtheprosecutionplacesreliance.ThefrstisMissAsdescriptionofthe
defendantasbeingjealousandcontrollingthroughoutthe12monthswhichprecededtheallegedattack.
ThisisrelevanttoMissAsassertionthatitwasinaftofjealousythatthedefendantattackedheronthis
occasion.ThesecondisMissAsdescriptionoftwopreviousoccasions,withinamonthbeforethepresent
incident,onwhichthedefendantsuddenlyusedviolenceuponher.Theprosecutioncaseisthattheprevious
violenceisrelevantbecauseitestablishesatendencyinthedefendanttouseunlawfulviolenceuponMissA
whenjealous,frustratedandangry.Ifso,thatmakesitmorelikelythatthedefendantwastheaggressoron
thepresentoccasionandlesslikelythat,asheasserts,hewasactinginselfdefence.
YoumustdecidewhetheryouaccepttheevidenceofMissAabouttheseearlierincidents.Inmakingthat
decisionyouwillneedalsotoconsidertheevidenceofhermother.MrsAspokeaboutherknowledgeof
therelationship.Shealsotoldyouthatshesawinjuriesonherdaughterduringthedayswhichfollowed
theearlierincidents.Thedefendantsevidenceaboutthoseincidentsandthecauseoftheinjurieswasvery
different.
IfyoudoacceptMissAsaccount,thenitisyourdecisionwhetheritdemonstratesatendencyinthedefendant
tobeviolenttowardsher.Ifyouaresureitdoes,youmayhaveregardtothattendencywhenresolvingthe
questionwhetherthedefendantwastheaggressoronthepresentoccasion.Itisforyoutodecidewhether
andtowhatextentyourfndinghelpsyouinthisrespect.
Please remember that the critical evidence concerns the events of....It is important to keep a sense of
proportionabouttheevidenceofpastincidents.Itmaybehelpfulinresolvingwherethetruthlies,that
isforyoutojudge,butpastincidentscannotaloneprovethedefendantsguilt.Evenifyoudoacceptthat
thedefendanthasbehavedbadlytowardsMissAinthepastitdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatheactedas
allegedonthepresentoccasion.
174
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration alleged offence within the confnes of a prison explanatory background - sentence
being served for unlike offences antecedents not relevant to propensity but may be relevant to
credibility - warning of limitations as to use of evidence of previous convictions
Thedefendantischargedwithassaultoccasioningactualbodilyharmonaprisonoffcer.Thedefendantwas
servingasentenceof18monthsimprisonmentforoffencesofburglary.Hevolunteeredinevidencethathe
hasapreviousconviction4yearsagoforapublicorderoffenceofusingthreateningwordsandbehaviour,
severalpreviousconvictionsfortheftfromshopsandtwoconvictionsforburglary.
Youhaveheardthatthedefendantwasinprisonbecauseyouwouldnototherwisehavebeenabletomake
senseoftheevidence.Youmaywonderwhetherhispreviousconvictionshaveanyotherrelevanceinthe
case.
Theymay,dependingonyourview,berelevanttothequestionwhetheryoucanacceptthatthedefendants
evidenceistrueormaybetrue.Whethertheydoassistinthatrespectisforyoutojudge.Apersonwithno
criminalrecordmaybemorelikelytotellthetruthandadishonestpersonmaybemorelikelytotelllies,but
rememberthatawitnesswithnocriminalrecordmaywelltelllies,whileawitnesswithacriminalrecord
maywellgivehonestevidence.
Thedefendanthimselfarguesthatsincehehas,duringhis38years,neverbeenconvictedofanoffenceof
personalviolencetowardsanother,itislesslikelythatonthisoccasionheactedviolentlytowardsV.Thisis
alsoaconsiderationtowhichyoushouldhaveregard.Thepublicorderoffencewhichthedefendantadmits
tookplacealongtimeagoinverydifferentcircumstancesandthereisnoevidencethatitwasaimedatany
particularindividual.
ItisforyoutoresolvewhethertheseconvictionsassistyoutotheextentIhaveindicatedand,ifso,howmuch
weightyoushouldattachtothem.
Thereis,however,nootherrespectinwhichtheseconvictionsarerelevanttoyourconsiderationofthecase.
Inparticular,theyprovidenoevidence,ofthemselves,tosupporttheprosecutioncasethatthedefendant
wastheaggressor.Thatquestioncanonlybedecidedbyanalysisoftheevidenceconcerningtheincident
itself.
17S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
335
Colliard[2008]EWCACrim77
336
Fox[2009]EWCA653
337
Highton[2005]1WLR3472;[2005]EWCACrim1985;Lamaletie[2008]EWCACrim314
338
Lafayette[2008]EWCACrim3238
339
[2005]1WLR3169;[2005]2CrAppR21;[2005]EWCA824at18
(2) Section 101(1)(d): Evidence Relevant to an Important Matter in Issue
Between the Prosecution and the Defence
Introduction
1. Bysection103(1)CriminalJusticeAct2003,mattersinissuebetweenthedefendantandtheprosecution
includebutarenotlimitedto:
(a)thequestionwhetherthedefendanthasapropensitytocommitoffencesofthekindwithwhich
heischarged(exceptwherehishavingsuchapropensitymakesitnomorelikelythatheisguiltyofthe
offence)and
(b)thequestionwhetherthedefendanthasapropensitytobeuntruthful(exceptwhereitisnot
suggestedthatthedefendantscaseisuntruthfulinanyrespect).
2. Althoughpropensityisthemostcommonmatterinissuethereareotherswhichmaybeimportantbut
arenotcapableofestablishingpropensity.Forexample,evidenceadmittedthroughgateway(d)maybe
admissibletorebutadefenceofinnocentassociation.
335
Signaturebehaviourmaybecriticaltoproofof
identity.Similarfactevidencemayprovideevidenceofpropensitybutthepurposeofitsintroduction
isnotnecessarilytoprovethepropensitybut,directly,toproveguilt.Evidenceofdispositionmaybe
admissible.Itmayormaynotamounttobadcharacterevidence.Thejudgeshouldbecarefultoanalyse
thegroundsforandpurposeofadmissionoftheevidenceanddirectthejuryaccordingtoitspresent
relevance.
336
3. Evidenceadmittedthroughanothergatewaymayalsoberelevanttopropensity
337
oranothermatterin
issue.Ifitis,thejurywillrequiredirectionstothateffectandanylimitationsuponitsuseshouldbemade
clear.
338
4. SeeDistinguishingbetweenevidenceofmisconductonotheroccasionsandevidencewhichhastodo
withtheoffencechargedabove.
Directions
(i) Propensity to Commit Offences of the Kind Charged

GeneralguidancewasgivenbytheVice-President,RoseLJinHanson
339
:
Our fnal general observation is that, in any case in which evidence of bad character is admitted
to show propensity, whether to commit offences or to be untruthful the judge in summing-up
should warn the jury clearly against placing undue reliance on previous convictions. Evidence of
bad character cannot be used simply to bolster a weak case, or to prejudice the minds of a jury
against a defendant. In particular, the jury should be directed: that they should not conclude that
17o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
thedefendantisguiltyoruntruthfulmerelybecausehehastheseconvictions;thatalthoughtheconvictions
mayshowapropensity,thisdoesnotmeanthathehascommittedthisoffenceorbeenuntruthfulinthis
case;that whethertheyinfactshowapropensityisforthemtodecide;thattheymusttakeintoaccount
whatthedefendanthassaidabouthispreviousconvictions;andthat,althoughtheyareentitled,iftheyfnd
propensityisshown,totakethisintoaccountwhendeterminingguilt,propensityisonlyonerelevantfactor
andtheymustassessitssignifcanceinthelightofalltheotherevidenceinthecase.
TheVice-PresidentgavefurtherassistanceinEdwards
340
:
Theguidanceprofferedinparagraph18ofHansonastowhatasumming-upshouldcontainwas,asis
apparent from the last sentence of the paragraph, not intended to provide a blueprint, departure from
whichwillresultinthequashingofaconviction.Whatthesumming-upmustcontainisaclearwarningto
thejuryagainstplacingunduerelianceonpreviousconvictions,whichcannot,bythemselves,proveguilt.
Itshouldbeexplainedwhythejuryhasheardtheevidenceandthewaysinwhichitisrelevanttoandmay
helptheirdecision,bearinginmindthatrelevancewilldependprimarily,thoughnotalwaysexclusively,
onthegatewayinsection101(1)oftheCriminalJusticeAct2003,throughwhichtheevidencehasbeen
admitted.Forexample,someevidenceadmittedthroughgateway(g),becauseofanattackonanother
personscharacter,mayberelevantorirrelevanttopropensity,soastorequireadirectiononthisaspect.
Providedthejudgegivessuchaclearwarning,explanationandguidanceastouse,thetermsinwhichheor
shedoessocanproperlydiffer.Thereisnorigidformulatobeadheredto.
InCampbell
341
theCourtofAppeal(LordPhillipsCJ)advisedthat:
Whereevidenceofbadcharacterisintroducedthejuryshouldbegivenassistanceastoitsrelevancethat
is tailored to the facts of the individual case. Relevance can normally be deduced by the application of
common sense. The summing up that assists the jury with the relevance of bad character evidence will
accordwithcommonsenseandassistthemtoavoidprejudicethatisatoddswiththis.
The credibility issue
TheVice-PresidentinEdwardsandLordPhillipsCJinCampbellgaveapprovaltotheformofdirectiongiven
byHHJudgeMortinChohan.MrChohanwaschargedwithrobberyofanelderlymanwhilecarryinga
handgun,andtheunlawfulpossessionoffrearms.Theissueintherobberycountwasidentifcationofthe
defendant.Awitness,whosawtherobberfeeingfromthescene,claimedthatMrChohanwasherdrugs
supplierwhomsheknewwell.Sheidentifedhim.Thejudgeadmittedherevidenceandevidenceofthe
defendantsconvictionsforrobbery,withtheuseofweapons,targetedagainstelderlyvictims.JudgeMort
directedthejurythatdifferentfeaturesofthedefendantsbadcharacterwererelevantto(1)explainthe
reliabilityoftheidentifcationevidence,(2)thedefendantspropensitytocommittheoffencecharged,and
(3)thecredibilityofthedefendantsevidence.
342
Footnotes
340
[2005]1WLR3472;[2006]1CrAppR3;[2005]EWCACrim1813at3
341
[2007]EWCACrim1472at24
342
SeeAppendix5(ii)forthetrialjudgesfulldirectiononbadcharacter
177
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
343
[2007]EWCACrim1472
344
28-30
345
ItissuggestedthatJudgeMortsdirectiononcredibilitydidnotneedtobeconfnedtothedefendantsconvictionsfor
dishonesty
InCampbell
343
LordPhillipsCJreasoned
344
thatwhendirectingthejuryitwouldusuallybeunrealistictomake
adistinctionbetweenadefendantspropensitytooffendandhiscredibilityasawitnessbecause,facedwith
evidenceofpropensitytocommittheoffence,ajurywouldconclude,atoneandthesametime,thatthe
defendantwasmorelikelytobeguiltyandthathewas,onthataccount,lesslikelytobetellingthetruth.
Inmanycasesthatwillbeso,buttheexistenceofapropensitydoesnotofitselfproveguilt(asthejudgeis
requiredtodirectthejury).Thejurywillneedtoassessthecredibilityofthedefendantspresentaccount.
Whentheymakethatassessmenttheyareentitled,itissuggested,totakeaccountofthefactthatthe
defendanthasabadcharacterandthenatureofthatbadcharacter,providedthattheyproceedwiththe
necessarycaution.Toconcludeotherwisewoulddeprivesection101(1)(g)(badcharacterevidenceadmitted
toassesswhetheranattackonanotherscharacterisworthyofbelief)ofmeaning.Thejurycouldreasonably
formtheview,forexample,thatapersonwhohasbeenrepeatedlydishonestinthepastislesslikelytobe
worthyoftrustasawitnessnoweventhoughdishonestyisnotthesameasuntruthfulness;orthatprevious
convictionsforimpulsiveviolencelendnoassistancetothatjudgement.
Furthermore,inviewoftheapprovalbytheCourtofAppealontwooccasionsofthecredibilitydirectionin
Chohan,itissafetoadvisethattrialjudgesareatlibertytoincludethecredibilityofthedefendantsevidence
asanissuetowhichthebadcharacterevidencemay,dependinguponthejurysview,berelevant.Towhat
extentitmaybeofassistancewillnodoubtdependupontheparticularcircumstancesofthecaseandthe
natureoftheevidenceofbadcharacter.
Thetrialjudgewillneedtoensurethatanysuchdirectionmeetstherequirementsoffairnessanddiscourages
prejudice.InChohan,forexample,JudgeMortpointedoutthatwhilethejurycouldtakeaccountofthe
defendantsconvictionsfordishonesty
345
whentheywereassessinghisevidence,thatdidnotimplythatthe
defendantwasnotorcouldnotbetellingthetruthand,asthedefendanthadsaid,hehadalwayspreviously
pleadedguilty.
ThefollowingaretheheadlinesforsumminguptobeextractedfromtheguidanceprovidedbytheCourtof
Appeal.Thejudgeshould:
Discusstheissueswiththeadvocatesbeforespeechesinordertoestablishwithclaritythepurposefor
whichtheevidencemayandmaynotbeused
Identifywhethertheevidenceadmittedisbadcharacterwithinthemeaningofsections98and
112.Ifitisadmittedatcommonlaw(e.g.theevidencefallsshortofmisconductoradisposition
tomisconduct,butisneverthelessrelevanttorebutadefenceofinnocentassociationortoprove
disposition,orithastodowiththeoffencecharged)itwillstillbenecessarytoexplaintherelevanceof
theevidence
Identifyforthejurythebadcharacterevidenceonwhichtheprosecutionrelies
Wheretheevidenceand/ortheconclusionstobedrawnaredisputed,summarisethedefencecase
Identifybyreferencetothefactsofthecasetheissue(s)towhichthebadcharacterevidenceis
relevant
178
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Informthejurythattheymustdecide(1)whenevidenceofbadcharacterisdisputed,whetherthey
aresureitisproved,(2)whethertheevidenceestablishes,sothattheyaresure,thepropensityor
othermatterinissueand(3)towhatextent,ifany,theirfndingassiststhemtoresolvetheultimate
issueofguilt
Warnthejuryagainstunfairprejudiceorover-relianceonbadcharacterevidence
Illustration - propensity to commit the offence charged relevant bad character agreed identifying
particular features relied upon factual conclusion of propensity for the jury weight for the jury
defence submissions - warning against prejudice and over-reliance on propensity evidence
Youhaveheardevidencethatthedefendanthasconvictionsfor....Letmeremindyouoftheagreedfactsof
thoseconvictions....Theyaresetoutinyourbundlesintheformaladmissions.
Youhaveheardofthedefendantspreviousbehaviourbecauseitisrelevanttothequestionwhetherhehas
apropensity,inotherwordsatendency,tocommitoffencesofthekindwithwhichheisnowcharged.The
particularfeaturesofthoseconvictionsonwhichtheprosecutionreliesare....Theprosecutionsubmitsthat
ifthedefendantdoeshaveapropensitytoactinthisway,thenitismorethanmerecoincidencethatV
describedhimasactinginasimilarwayonthisoccasion.ItmakesitmorelikelythathebehavedasVhas
described.
Thepurposeofthisevidenceisnottogenerateunfairprejudicetowardsthedefendantandyoumustguard
againstthat.Thefactthatthedefendanthasconvictionscannotofitselfprovehisguiltofthisoffenceand
shouldnotconvicthimjustbecauseormainlybecauseofthem.
First,youshouldconsiderwhethertheevidenceofthedefendantspreviousconvictionsestablishesthatthe
defendanthasapropensityortendencyto.....Youmustfrstdecidewhetherthepropensityisprovedsothat
youaresure.Ifitisprovedyoumust,secondly,decidewhetherandtowhatextentthathelpsyouwhenyou
arediscussingwhetherthedefendantisguiltyoftheoffencecharged.Ifyouarenotsurethepropensityis
proveditcannotassistyouinthisway.Evenifyouacceptthatthedefendanthasapropensitytocommit
offencesofthiskinditdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatheisguiltyonthisoccasion.
Thesecondwayinwhichevidenceofthedefendantscharactermayassistyouisinconsideringwhetherhe
hasgiventruthfulevidence.Thedefendanthasconvictionsfordishonesty.Thatdoesnotestablishthatthe
defendantisnecessarilyorisalwaysanuntruthfulperson,nordoesitmeanthathecannotbetellingthe
truthnow.Whethertheevidenceprovidesyouwithanyassistanceinthisrespectisalsoforyoutojudge.
Thedefencesaythatthedefendantspastbehaviourcannotorshouldnotassistyoubecause.....
Please bear in mind that this evidence of the defendants previous behaviour is but a small part of the
evidenceinthecase.Youwillappreciatethatitisnotdirectevidencethatthedefendantcommittedthe
offencebutofcircumstancesconcerningthedefendantwhichyouareentitledtotakeintoaccountwhen
decidingwhetherhedid.
17
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration - bad character evidence not involving convictions evidence given by other
complainants - disputed similar fact assessment of the evidence similar fact - unlikelihood of
coincidence and propensity eliminate collusion warning about prejudice
You have heard evidence from V. Her evidence is central to the prosecution case and forms the basis of
thechargesintheindictment.YoucannotconvictthedefendantunlessyouacceptVsevidence.Youhave
alsoheardfromAandBaboutincidentsunconnectedwiththecharges,save,saytheprosecution,forthe
similaritywhichthedefendantsconducttowardsthembearstoVsdescriptionofhisconducttowardsher.
TheevidenceofAandBisrelevantbecauseitmayassistyoutodecidewhetheryoucanacceptVsevidence
astruthfulandaccurate.
Letmeexplainhowyoushouldapproachthisevidence.
First, the prosecution contends that it is no coincidence that all three of these witnesses describe similar
conductbythedefendanttowardsthem.Ifthreewomen,unknowntooneanother,makecomplaintsofa
similarkindagainstthesameman,andcollusionbetweenthemcanbeexcluded,itmakesitmorelikelythat
eachofthemistellingthetruth.Thecloserthesimilarityoftheconductallegedthelesslikelyitisthatthe
evidencecanbeexplainedawayascoincidenceormaliciousinvention.Youmustexaminetheevidencewith
care.Ifyouaresurethatcollusionorinfuencebyanyonewitnessoveranother,deliberateorunintentional,
canbeexcluded,thenyouareentitledtoregardtheevidenceofeachwitnessassupportiveoftheothers.
YouarenotboundtotreattheevidenceassupportiveofV.Thatisyourdecision.Furthermore,theextentto
whichitmaybesupportiveisalsoforyoutojudge.
Secondly,theprosecutionsubmitsthattheevidenceofAandB,bothwomenwithwhomthedefendant
hadenjoyedsexualrelationshipsinthepast,establishesthatthedefendanthasapropensity,ortendency,
tobehaveinaparticularwaytowardswomenwhenhiswishesarethwarted.Ifyouacceptthatsubmission,
theysaythefactthatthedefendantpossessedsuchatendencymakesitmorelikelythathebehavedtowards
Vasshesayshedidtowardsher.YoumustdecidewhetherAandBgavetruthfulevidence.Iftheydid,do
youconcludethatthedefendantdidhavethepropensityalleged?Ifyouaresurethatistherightconclusion,
youmustassesswhetherand,ifso,towhatextentithelpsyoutodecidewhetherthedefendantisguilty
ofthechargeyouareconsidering.Evenifyoudodecidethatthedefendanthasapropensitytoactasthe
prosecutionallegeitdoesnotfollowthathemustbeguiltyoftheoffencescharged.
IshallremindyouinmoredetaillateroftheevidenceofV,A,Bandthedefendant,butforthemomentlet
mesummariseforyou(1)thesimilaritiesreliedonbytheprosecutionand(2)theevidencerelevanttothe
issueofindependenceoftheprosecutionwitnessesfromoneanother......
Thesubmissionsmadeonbehalfofthedefendantwere.....
RememberthattheevidenceofAandBisrelevantonlyforthepurposesIhavedescribed.Itwouldbewrong
totakeashortcutandsaytoyourselves,Thereisnosmokewithoutfre.Thatwouldamounttounfair
prejudice.RememberalsothatthecriticalevidenceisthatofV.Theevidenceofpastbehaviouriscapableof
supportingtheprosecutioncasebutitcannotaloneproveguilt.
180
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration evidence of paraphernalia and money defendant charged with possession with intent
to supply evidence of propensity to deal in drugs whether the evidence establishes defendant is a
current dealer warning as to prejudice
Foundinthedefendantsfatwere(1)alistofnameswithfguresalongsidethem,(2)apairofscaleson
whichtracesofcocainehavebeenfound,and(3)inacardboardbox,1,500inassortednotes.
Ineedtoexplainhowyoumayusethisevidencewhenconsideringthequestionswhether(1)thedefendant
knewthatthepackagefoundinhiskitchenwastebincontainedpowderedcocaineinwrapsand(2)the
defendantpossessedthatpackagewithintenttosupplyitscontentstoanotherorothers.
Thedefendantsaysthatthepackagemusthavebeenplacedtherebyafriendwhohadrecentlyvisitedhim.
Heisnotpreparedtonamethatperson.Thedefendantsaidhehadnoknowledgethatthepackagewas
there,letalonewhatitcontained.Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantisplainlyadrugdealer.No
otherdrugswerefoundinhispossession.Thepackageinhiswastebinmusthavebeenthestashwhichhe
usedfortrading.
YouhaveheardevidencefromDCAthatthelistofnamesistypicaloftherecordthatadealermightkeep
oftransactionsbetweenhimselfandhiscustomers.Atsomestage,theforensicscientistcannotsaywhen,
cocainehascomeintocontactwiththescales.Themostobviouswayinwhichthatcontactcouldhavetaken
placewaswhenthescaleswereusedtoweighthedrug.Youwouldnothavecausetoweighthedrugunless
youweredealinginit.The1,500incashcannotspeakforitselfbutyouhaveheardevidencethatthe
defendanthasbeenunemployedandreceivingbeneftsforaperiodofmorethan12months.
Insummary,whatthedefendanttoldyouabouteachoftheseitemswas.....
Youwill,frst,needtoconsiderthedefendantsexplanations.Ifyouthinktheyaretrueormaybetruethen
theseitemscannotprovideanysupportfortheprosecutioncase.If,however,yourejectthemasuntruethe
defendants possession of these items is capable of establishing that the defendant has dealt in cocaine
atsometimeintherecentpast.Itisforyoutoreachaconclusionwhetheritdoesornot.Ifyouaresureit
does,theprosecutionsuggeststhatthefactthedefendantisprovedtohavebeenbeadrugdealerinthe
pastmakesitmorelikelythatthedrugfoundinhisfatbelongedtohimandthatheintendedtosupplyitto
others.Thatisadecisionforyoutomake.
Thepossessionofthecashinaboxunderthedefendantsbedisparticularlysignifcant,saytheprosecution,
becauseitsuggeststhatthedefendantwasanactivedrugdealeratthetimeofhisarrest.Itformedthebank
fromwhichhewasconductinghisbusinessofbuyingandsellingdrugs.Thatisaconclusionyouareentitled
toreach,butonlyifyouaresureonalltheevidencethatthecashisexplainedbythefactthathewasa
currentdrugdealerandnotmerelythathehadsavedsomeoftheproftondealshehadmadeinthepast.
Itssignifcancetothequestionsyouareconsideringisthis:Ifyouaresurethedefendantwasanactivedrug
dealeratthetimethecocainewasfoundinhisbinthatmaymakeitmorelikelythatthestashwashis.You
arenotboundtoreachthatconclusion.Youmustreachsuchconclusionsasyouconsiderright.
Evidenceofapropensitytodealincocaineisjustpartoftheevidenceinthecaseanditcannotaloneprovide
theanswertoit.Rememberthatifyouconcludethedefendanthaddealtcocainebefore,yourconclusion
doesnotautomaticallymeanthatthepackagebelongedtohimandthatheislyingaboutitnow.What
weightandsignifcancethisevidencedeservesisforyoutodetermine.Whatyoushouldnotdoisconvictthe
defendantoutofprejudicejustbecauseyouaresurehehasdoneitbefore.
181
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration charge of possession with intent to supply defence of ignorance previous convictions
for possession relevant to knowledge but not to propensity warning as to limited use
Thedefendantadmitsthathewaspaid500todriveapackageweighing6kilosfromLondontoNewcastle.
Hesaysthathehadnoideathepackagecontainedskunkcannabisandhadnoreasontosuspectthatit
did.
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthecircumstancesinwhichhecollectedanddeliveredthepackagemakeitquite
clearthatthedefendantknewwhathewasdoing.Youhave,inaddition,heardthatthedefendanthas
threepreviousconvictionsforpossessionofclassAandBcontrolleddrugs.Themerefactthatthedefendant
hadinthepastacquireddrugsforhispersonalconsumptiondoesnotmakeitmoreorlesslikelythathe
committedthisoffence,buthisconvictionsarerelevantinaspecifcandlimitedway.Theyarecapableof
demonstratingthatthedefendantwasnotunfamiliarwiththetradeincontrolleddrugs.Hewasnot,in
otherwords,beingexposedtoatradeofwhichhewascompletelyignorantandnaive.Thatfactisrelevant
tothequestionwhetherthedefendantkneworhadreasontosuspectthathewasdeliveringapackageof
controlleddrugs.Inthisway,theyimpactonyourconsiderationwhetheryouconcludethatthedefendants
evidenceistrueorfalse.Whethertheseconvictionshavethiseffectisamatterforyou,asareallquestionsof
theweightandsignifcanceofevidence.
182
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(ii) Propensity for Untruthfulness
Distinctionbetweenpropensityandcreditworthiness
Itisnecessarytodistinguishbetweenevidenceofbadcharactergoingtotheissuesof:
(1) thedefendantscreditworthiness(generalbadcharacterrelevant);
(2) apropensitytobedishonest(otherdishonestbehaviourrelevant);and
(3) apropensityfordeceitfulness/tellinglies(otherdeceitfulness/lyingrelevant).
Asto(1)above,anyformofotheroffendingbehaviouriscapableofaffectingawitnesscreditworthiness,
althoughthenatureoftheoffendingmaydeterminethedegreetowhichthatcreditworthinessisaffected.
Asto(2)above,pastdishonestbehaviourmayestablishapropensitytoactdishonestly.Itmaythereforebe
admittedundersection101(1)(d)andsection103(1)(a)wheredishonestyinthecommissionoftheoffence
isanissuebetweenthedefendantandtheprosecution.Pastdishonestymayalsobecapableofaffecting
thedefendantscreditworthinessasawitness,asmayanyotherevidenceofhisbadcharacter.Thisdoesnot
mean,however,thattheevidenceiscapableofestablishingapropensityforuntruthfulness.Dishonestyisnot
synonymouswithuntruthfulness,althoughuntruthfulnessmaybeafeatureofdishonesty.
346
Asto(3)above,theissues(i)whethertheevidenceiscapableofestablishingapropensityforuntruthfulness
and(ii)ifso,whetheritshouldadmittedorusedforthatpurposeismorecomplicated.
(i) Dishonestyalonecannotestablishapropensityforuntruthfulness.
347
Itissuggestedthattheevidence
mustconcernlyingordeceitfulnessonotheroccasions.
(ii) InCampbell
348
LordPhillipsCJobservedthatapropensityforuntruthfulnessisnotinmostcasesgoingto
helpthejurytoresolveguiltbecauseguiltisamotivationforlying,evenifthedefendanthasnotpreviously
demonstratedatendencyforlying,andinnocenceisamotivationfortellingthetruth,whetherthedefendant
hadapropensityforlyingornot.Forthisreason,
349
theonlycircumstanceinwhichthereislikelytobean
importantissueastowhetherthedefendanthasapropensitytotellliesiswheretellingliesisanelementofthe
offencecharged.Inthatcircumstance,thereislikelyinanyeventtobeapropensitytocommitoffencesofa
similarkindwhichwouldbeadmissibleundersections101(1)(d)and103(1)(a).
Whetherornottheevidenceiscapableofestablishingapropensityforuntruthfulness,itmayberelevantto
thedefendantsgeneralcreditworthinessasawitness(asin(1)above).Atparagraphs34and35ofChohan,
LordPhillipsexpresslyapprovedHHJudgeMortsdirection(acaseofallegedrobberyandpossessionof
frearms)totheeffectthatthejurycouldconsiderthedefendantspreviousconvictionsforoffenceswhich
involveddishonestywhenjudgingwhetherthedefendanthadgiventruthfulevidence,notwithstandingthat
theyhadalreadyreceivedapropensitydirection.Itissuggestedthatalthoughthecredibilitydirectionwas
justifedbyJudgeMortonthegroundthatthepreviousconvictionswereforoffencesofdishonestythereisno
reasoninprinciplewhyconvictionsfortheotheroffencesshouldnotalsohavebeentreatedasrelevantforthis
purpose.
Footnotes
346
SeeHanson[2005]1WLR3169,[2005]EWCACrim824
347
Hanson[2005]1WLR3169,[2005]EWCACrim824
348
[2007]EWCACrim1472
349
31
183
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
350
Lafayette[2008]EWCACrim3238;Hearne[2009]EWCACrim103
351
Lafayetteatparagraphs46and47
352
SeealsoDirections(i)PropensitytoCommitOffencesoftheKindChargedabove.
353
Notealsothetermsofsection104(1)concerningissuesbetweenco-defendants
354
Hanson[2005]1WLR3169,[2005]EWCACrim824at13:Previousconvictions,whetherforoffencesofdishonestyor
otherwise,arethereforeonlylikelytobecapableofshowingapropensityforuntruthfulnesswhere...truthfulnessisanissueand...
eithertherewasapleaofnotguiltyandthedefendantgaveanaccountonarrest,ininterview,orinevidence,whichthejury
musthavedisbelieved,orthewayinwhichtheoffencewascommittedshowsapropensityforuntruthfulness,forexample,by
themakingoffalserepresentations....;andat9:Thereisnominimumnumberofeventsnecessarytodemonstratesucha
propensity.Thefewerthenumberofconvictionstheweakerislikelytobetheevidenceofpropensity....
Aconclusionthatadefendanthasapropensityforuntruthfulness,foundeduponatrackrecordfortellinglies,
isnot,ofcourse,thesamethingasaconclusionthatthedefendantsgeneralbadcharacteraffectshisorher
creditworthinessasawitness.Apropensityforuntruthfulnessbitesdirectlyupontheimportantmatterinissue,
whilegeneralbadcharactergoingtocreditworthinessdoesnot.
Section101(1)(g)demonstratesthattheActitselfdrawsadistinctionbetweenadefendantspropensityfor
untruthfulness,hisdishonestyandhisgeneralcreditworthiness.Oncethedefendanthasmadeanattack
onanotherscharacter,evidenceofhisownbadcharacterisadmissible,subjecttofairness(section101(3)),
whetherornotthebadcharacterdisclosedembracesapropensityforuntruthfulnessordishonesty.
350
Itis
admissibletoenablethejurytoconsiderwhethertheattackmadeisworthyofbelief.
351
Whilerecognisingthe
commonsenseinnotcomplicatingapropensitydirectionbyreferencestocredibility,itdoesnotappearthat
theCourtinCampbellwasintendingtoprohibitsuchdirectionswherethefactsofthecasejustifyit.
352
Whendoessection103(1)(b)apply?
Section103(1)(b)provides:
(1)Forthepurposesofsection101(1)(d)themattersinissuebetweenthedefendantandthe
prosecutioninclude
(b) thequestionwhetherthedefendanthasapropensitytobeuntruthful,exceptwhereitisnot
suggestedthatthedefendantscaseisuntruthfulinanyrespect.
Thereferenceinsubsection(1)(b)tothedefendantscasedemonstratesatleastoneaspectofitspurpose.
Whereanimportantmatterinissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefenceiswhetherthedefendantscase
isuntrue,evidenceofapropensityforuntruthfulnessisadmissible.
353
Section103(1)(b)appliesonlytoevidencewhichiscapableofestablishingapropensitytobedeceitfulorto
telllies,andevidenceofsuchapropensityisadmissibleonlywhenitisanimportantmatterinissuebetween
theprosecutionandthedefendant.
Apropensityfordeceitfulnessortellingliesmay,butwillnotnecessarily,beanimportantmatterinissue
betweentheprosecutionandthedefence,eitherwhenanelementoftheoffencechargedisfraud,liesor
deceit,orwhenitistheprosecutioncasethatthedefenceputforwardbythedefendantistheproductof
fraud,liesordeceit.
Thatdoesnotmeanthattheevidenceofpastuntruthfulnessshouldbeadmittedor,ifadmitted,usedforthe
purposeofunderminingadefencetoachargewhichdoesnotinvolveuntruthfulness.Thejudgementmust
beoneformedafterconsiderationsoftheimportanceoftheissue,fairnessandprejudice.Forthereason
giveninCampbell,apropensityforuntruthfulnessmaynotbesuffcientlyprobativeofthefalsityofthe
defendantscasethatitoughttobeadmittedorusedbythejuryforthatpurpose.Inanycase,apropensityfor
untruthfulnessisnotnecessarilyestablishedbyproofofpastdishonesty.
354

184
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration fraud - false representation - crime involves untruthfulness previous conviction and
other behaviour capable of establishing a propensity for untruthfulness relevant to offence charged
and to the defendants evidence warning against prejudice warning against undue weight
Thedefendantischargedwithfraudbyfalselyrepresentingonhiswebsitethathewouldprovideareturn
of10%pabyinvestmentinabluechipcompany.Bythismeansheobtainedover250,000fromseveral
investorswhosaytheythoughttheirmoneywassafe.Mostoftheirmoneywaslostfollowingitstransfer
toALtd.,apropertycompanyofwhichthedefendantswifewasthesoledirectorandshareholder.The
defendantacceptsthathiswifeobtainedALtd.offtheshelfforthepurposeofreceivingfundsforinvestment
inarentedpropertyportfolio.Hiscaseisthathehonestlybelievedthatthedescriptionbluechipappliedto
ALtd.becausehecouldnotenvisageitfailing.Theprosecutionmust,inrespectofeachcount,provethat(1)
therepresentationwasuntrueormisleading,(2)thedefendantknewthattherepresentationwasormight
beuntrueormisleading,(3)therepresentationwasmadedishonestlyand(4)thedefendantintendedto
makeagainforhimselfortoexposethelosertoariskofloss.
Youhaveheardevidencethatwithinthelastfveyearsthedefendant:
(1) madefalserepresentationsinhisCVtoobtainemploymentwithXLtd;
(2) concealedfromhistrusteeinbankruptcytheexistenceofassetswhichshouldhavebeenmade
availabletohiscreditors;
(3) wasconvictedbythemagistratesofanoffenceofdisplayingaforgedvehicleexciselicenceona
motorcar;
(4) inbreachofarestrainingordermadeinmatrimonialproceedingsattemptedtoobtainasecond
mortgageonhismatrimonialhomebyfalselyrepresentingthatthepropertywasunencumbered.
Thecentralissueforyoutoresolveiswhether,whenthedefendantmadetheinvitationtoinvest,heknew
thatthetermbluechipwasormightbeuntrueormisleadingand,onthataccount,dishonest.Youhave
heard this evidence, not in order to cast the defendant in a bad light, but, because it is, depending on
yourview,directlyrelevanttothecentralissuewhetherhemadefalseormisleadingstatementsdishonestly.
Theprosecutionarguesthatthedefendantsconductonotheroccasionsdemonstrateshispropensitytobe
untruthful in his business and personal fnancial affairs. This should, submits the prosecution, assist you
totheconclusion,frst,thatheismorelikelytohavebeenuntruthfulwithhisinvestorsastheprosecution
contendsand,secondly,thathispresentclaiminevidencetohavebelievedinthetruthofhisrepresentation
isfalse.
Letmeexplainhowyoushouldapproachthisevidence.
You should frst decide whether you accept some or all of the evidence of the defendants deceit and
untruthfulnessonotheroccasions.Ifyoudo,youshouldnextassesswhetherthatevidenceestablishesthat
thedefendanthastheallegedpropensitytobeuntruthful.Ifyouaresurehedoes,youareentitledtohave
regardtothatconclusionwhendecidingwhether(1)heknewwhenhemadetheinvitationtoinvestorsthat
hisbluechiprepresentationwasormightbeuntrueormisleadingand(2)thedefendantsevidenceinthis
respectwastrueorfalse.
18S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
InamomentIshallremindyouoftheevidencereliedonbytheprosecutiontoestablishthepropensityand
thedefendantsevidenceinresponse.Thedefencesubmitsthatevenifyoudoconcludethatthedefendant
hasbeenuntruthfulordeceitfulonotheroccasionsyoushouldnotderiveanyassistancefromitbecause.....
Rememberthatevidenceofpreviousbehaviourisjustpartoftheevidenceinthecase.Itisforyoutodecide
howimportantapart,butthecriticalevidenceconcernstheoffencesnowchargedintheindictment.Proof
thatthedefendanthasapropensitytobeuntruthfuldoesnotaloneprovethathedeceivedhiscustomersor
hasliedtoyouonthisoccasion.
Illustration allegation of false alibi previous conviction after a false alibi relevant to
untruthfulness of the defence case warning as to limitations of the evidence warning as to undue
weight
Inhisinterviewwiththepolicethedefendantmadenocommenttoquestionsaskedabouthismovements.
Notuntilheservedadefencestatement,twoweeksbeforethetrialbegan,didthedefendantdisclosethat
he had an alibi for the time of the robbery. I have explained how the failure to disclose his alibi when
interviewedmay,dependingonyourview,countagainsthim.
ThedefendantgaveevidenceinsupportofhisalibiandhewassupportedbyA.Theysaidthatatthetime
oftherobberytheywerewalkingtogetherfromthedefendantshometoapublichouseintheHighStreet,
thestreetwheretherobberytookplace.Youwillrecallthatcounselfortheprosecutionaskedthedefendant
abouthispreviousconviction12monthsagoforanoffenceofburglary.Thedefendantonthatoccasion
calledBtosupporthisevidenceofalibi.Theysaidtheyweredrinkingtogetherinapublichouse.Thejury
disbelievedthem.
Theconvictionforburglaryisofnosignifcancetoyourconsiderationoftheevidenceandyoushouldnot
treatitasanysupportfortheprosecutioncase.However,thealibithedefendantthenputforwardisrelevant.
Animportantissueinthistrialiswhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatthedefendantwasthemanwith
thehandgun.YouhaveseentheCCTVevidence,whichtheprosecutionacceptsisinconclusive.Youhave
heardthescientifcevidencewhichmayimplicatethedefendantthroughheadhairfoundonthebalaclava
recoverednotfarfromthescene.Thedefendanthasgivenanexplanationforthepresenceofhishaironthat
itemwhichyouwillneedtoexamine.If,however,youweretoconcludethatthedefendantsalibiistrueor
maybetruethen,plainly,youcouldnotalsoconcludethatthedefendantwaspresentatandtakingpartin
therobbery.
The prosecution case is that the alibi put forward by the defendant and A is contrived, untrue, and a
late attempt by the defendant to deal with the prosecution evidence linking him with the robbery. The
prosecutionsuggeststhat,apartfromtheunsatisfactorynatureoftheevidencegivenbythedefendantand
A,thedefendantisamanwhoispreparedtoorganisefalseevidenceofalibiinanattempttoescapethe
consequencesofhisparticipationincrime.Thatmakesitmorelikelythathehasdonethesamethingonthis
occasion.
18o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thedefendantdoesnotdisputethathegavealibievidenceathistrialforburglarywhichwasdisbelieved.
However, despite the jurys verdict, he continues to maintain that it was true. You must consider, frst,
whethertheprosecutionhasestablishedsothatyouaresurethatthedefendantandBknowinglygavefalse
alibievidenceattheburglarytrial.Ifyouaresuretheydid,thenyoushoulddecidewhetherthatestablishes
apropensityinthedefendanttomanufactureevidencewhenitsuitshim.Youarenotboundtoreachthat
conclusionandifyouarenotsurethepropensityisestablishedyoushouldputthisevidencetoonesideand
ignoreit.Ifyouaresurethepropensityisestablished,youareentitledtobearitinmindwhenjudgingthe
questionwhetherthedefendantspresentalibiisfalse.
Itwasarguedonbehalfofthedefendantthat....
Please remember that this evidence of the earlier trial cannot prove the defendants guilt of the present
chargeofrobbery.Whatitdoes,atmost,istoplacebeforeyoucircumstanceswhichyouwouldwishtoknow
aboutbeforedecidingwhetheryoucanplaceanyrelianceonhispresentalibi.Itdoesnotnecessarilyfollow
thatbecausethedefendanthastoldliesaboutanalibionanearlieroccasionhehasdonesoagainonthis.
Evenifyouweresurethatthepresentalibiisfalse,thatdoesnotbyitselfentitleyoutoconvictthedefendant.
Youmustbesurethathewasthemanwiththehandgun.Youmaycertainlytakethefalsealibiintoaccount
butyoushouldbearinmindthatanalibimaybeinventedbyaninnocentdefendantwhothinksitiseasier
topresentanalibithanitistoputforwardagenuinedefence.
187
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(iii) Defendants Signature
Identifcationoftheoffendermaybeanimportantmatterinissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefence.
Badcharacterevidencelinkingthedefendantwiththecrimeisadmissibleundergateway(d).Evidenceof
idiosyncratic(signature)behaviourbytheoffenderwhichthedefendanthasexhibitedonotheroccasions
maybeadmittedtosupportanidentifcationofthedefendantbyawitnessand/oraspartofacircumstantial
case.Thesignaturebehaviourmaybesoidiosyncraticand,onthataccount,compelling,thatitisthe
foundationoftheprosecutioncase;alternatively,thebehaviourmaybemorecommonplacebut,considered
withothercircumstances,probativeofguilt.
Thejudgewillneedtoassesstheprominenceofthesignatureevidenceintheprosecutioncaseandtodirect
thejuryaccordingly.Itmayormaynotbeappropriatetoremindthejurythatthebadcharacterevidence
isbutasmallpartoftheevidenceinthecase.Themoresignifcantitisso,correspondingly,istheneedfor
carefulexaminationoftheevidenceandtheconclusionstobedrawnfromit.
Illustration stolen car used in robbery evidence linking the defendant with the car is bad character
evidence warning against prejudice modifed Hanson direction
AsIhaveexplained,theprosecutioncaseiscircumstantial.Oneoftheprominentcircumstancesreliedupon
bytheprosecutionisthefactthattherobberusedadistinctivecustomisedmotorcar.Thatcarwascaptured
onCCTVbeingdrivenawayfromthescene.Itwaslaterfoundseveralmilesaway,burnedout.Thelast
changeofownershipwasregistered3yearsagoandtheownerwasnotthedefendant.Thecarwasreported
stolen3monthsago.Atthetimeitwasstolenthecarhadnoneofthesedistinctivefeatures.Thereisno
evidencewhostolethecarandwhocustomisedit.
Thereisnoevidencefromwitnessesunequivocallyidentifyingtherobber.Hewaswearingashortleather
jacketandabalaclavawornasafacemask.Abalaclavaofsimilarappearancewasfoundatthedefendants
hometuckedintothepocketofhisblackleatherjacket.Strandsofhishairwerefoundinsideit.
Theprosecutioncontendsthatwhoeverwasusingthatcarwasthemanwhocommittedtherobbery.
The prosecution say that man was the defendant. To prove it, they rely upon a violent incident which
happenedjusttwohourshourbeforetherobbery.Thatistheonlyreasonyouhaveheardthisevidence.Itis
directlyrelevanttotheissueyouhavetodecide,andyoushouldnotallowtheassaultonMrAtoprejudice
yourmindsagainstthedefendant.
MrAtoldyouhewasstationaryatasetoftraffclightswhenthedefendantcameupbehindhim.The
defendantfailedtobrakeintimeandaslightcollisionoccurred.MrAgotoutofhiscarandwenttothe
reartoinspecthiscarfordamage.Simultaneously,thedefendantgotoutofhiscarandtoldMrAtoleaveit
anddriveon.WhenMrArefusedandaskedforhisdetails,thedefendantpunchedhimrepeatedlyaround
theheadandface,gotbackintothecar,reversedandthenmovedoutintothesecondlanetomakegood
hisescape.Whilehewasdoingthat,MrAhadthepresenceofmindtophotographthecarwithhismobile
telephone.Afterthedefendantsarrestforrobbery,MrAidentifedhimatanidentifcationprocedureasthe
manwhoattackedhimattheroadside.
Thedefendantchosetomakenocommentduringhisinterviewundercautionandhehasnotgivenevidence.
MrAsidentifcationofhimhasbeenchallenged.
188
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Letmeexplainhowyoushouldapproachtheevidenceinstages.
YoumustfrstconsidertheprosecutionsassertionthatthedistinctivecartobeseenintheCCTVflmwasthe
carusedbytherobber.Thereappearstobenochallengetothatassertion.Secondly,youshouldexamine
MrAsphotograph.Areyousurethatthecarinthatphotographwasthesamecarasthecarusedinthe
robbery?Thirdly,youmustconsidertheevidenceofMrAsidentifcationofthedefendantasthemanwho
attackedhimanddroveawayinthatcar.Areyousurethatmanwasthedefendant?Iwillgiveyoufurther
directionsaboutthisinamoment.Fourthly,canyouinfer,sothatyouaresure,thatthemaninpossession
ofthedistinctivecarwhentherobberytookplacewasthedefendant?Inconsideringthisfnallinkyouare
entitledtotakeintoaccountthedefendantspossessionoftheleatherjacketandbalaclavafoundathis
home.
Youwillseethateachlinkinthechainofcircumstantialevidenceisimportant.Youshouldlookatallthe
circumstancesandconsiderwhethertheyleadyoutothesureconclusionthatthedefendantisguilty.
Illustration burglaries bearing a rare or unique similarity assessment of similarities and differences
propensity cannot prove guilt warning against prejudice
Thedefendantischargedwiththreeburglariesofsubstantialdwellinghousescommittedduringthesame
weekinthesamedistrictofCardiff.Ineachcaseentrywasgainedthroughagroundfoorwindowwhen
thepremisesweretemporarilyunoccupied.Accesshadbeengainedusingablowtorchtofracturetheglass.
Theburglarhadconfnedhisattentiontopaintingsandornaments.Nothingelsewasstolen.Thereissome
scientifcevidencewhichmaylinkthedefendanttothelastofthoseburglaries.Itcomprisesthefndingof
afragmentofglassinapocketofthedefendantsjacket,havingthesamerefractiveindexasglassfound
atthepointofentry.Thereisnoevidencefromanywitnesswhichdirectlyidentifesthedefendantasthe
burglar.
Youhave,however,heardevidencethatthedefendanthasaconviction5yearsagoforaseriesofburglaries
which, the prosecution suggests, had features which were strikingly similar to those charged in the
indictment.Thosesimilaritiesare.....
Furthermore, you heard evidence from Det Insp A that, in the experience of the police services in South
Wales,DyfedPowysandGwent,theonlyoffencesrecordedinthosepoliceareashavingallthesefeatures
werecommittedbythisdefendant.Theyhavecomeacrossnoothersuchcasessincerecordshavebeenkept.
Youareinvitedtoinferthateachofthethreeburglarieschargedintheindictmentwascommittedbythe
samemanand,giventheirrareoruniquenature,thattheyaretheworkofthedefendant.
Youneedtoexaminethisevidenceinstages.
First,considerthefactsrelatingtoeachoftheburglaries,thosechargedintheindictmentandthosetowhich
thedefendantpleadedguiltyinthepast.Whatarethesimilaritiesbetweenthem?
Second,decidewhetherthesimilaritiesaresostrikingandsingularthatyoucanbesuretheyrevealapattern
ofoffencescommittedbythesameman.Ifyouweretoconcludethatanyoneoftheburglarieschargedin
theindictmentdoesnot,ormaynot,fallintothepatternyouhaveidentifed,youshouldexcludeitfrom
yourconsiderationandreturn,inrespectofthatcount,averdictofnotguilty.
18
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Third,ifthesingularnatureoftheburglaryyouareconsideringdrivesyoutothesureconclusionthatitwas
committedbythedefendant,yourverdictinrespectthatcountwouldbeguilty.
Itissubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantthatwhileeachoftheburglaries,pastandpresent,hasthese
featuresincommon,someofthemhaveadditionalfeatureswhichdiffer.Theyare....Ifyouacceptthatthose
differencesarepresentormaybepresent,youwillneedtoconsiderwhethertheyareofanysignifcance.If
theyare,askyourselveswhethertheexistenceofthosedifferencesunderminesthecaseputforwardbythe
prosecutionthattheseareallburglariescommittedbythesameperson.Ifyouthinktheydoundermineor
mayunderminetheprosecutionscircumstantialcase,yourverdictsshouldnotguilty.
Itwasalsosubmittedthat5yearshaveelapsedsincethedefendantsconviction.Duringhisprisonsentence
hewillinevitablyhavetoldinmatesabouthisoffending.Youcannotbesurethatsomeoneelsewasnot
operatingthesamemethodofentryandtargetingsimilarpropertywhentherecentoffenceswerecommitted.
Indecidingwhetherthatisarealisticpossibilityyouareentitledtotakeaccountoftheglassfoundinthe
defendantspocketandtheother,lessprominent,circumstanceswhich,theprosecutionsubmits,pointsto
thisdefendantastheburglar.
Whatyoushouldnotdoistakeashortcut.Itwouldbeunfairtothedefendantifyouweretemptedtosay
thatbecausehehascommittedaburglarylikethisbeforehemusthavedoneitagain.Youmaycometo
theconclusionthatthedefendantundoubtedlyhadapropensitytocommittheoffenceofburglaryinthis
unusualwaybutthatisnotenough.Theprosecutionmustmakeyousure,bythequalityoftheevidenceof
similarity,theabsenceofsignifcantdifferencesandthecircumstancesproved,thattheseburglariesbearhis
signatureandno-oneelses.
10
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(iv) Rebutting a Defence
Whilenotstrictlysimilarfactorsignatureevidence,badcharacterevidencewhichtendstounderminea
defencesuchasinnocentassociationorlackofknowledgemayberelevanttoanimportantmatterinissue
betweentheprosecutionandthedefenceandadmittedassuchundersection101(1)(d).
Thepurposeforwhichtheevidencewasadmittedislikelytohavebeenquitenarrowand,unlesstheevidence
hasbecomerelevantforawiderpurpose,thejuryshouldbetoldofitslimitedapplication.
Illustration fraud - alleged dishonest expense claim previous warning as to future conduct
relevance of warning to defendants state of mind warning against prejudice
ThedefendanthastoldyouinevidencethatwhenhesubmittedhisclaimtoXLtdfortheexpensesofa
conferencevisittotheHotelMiramarinMalagaforfourdays,hebelievedthathewasentitledtoincludethe
costoftakinghiswifeandtwochildrenaswell.Hesaysthatforthisreasonhisclaimwasnotdishonest.
Youhaveheardthat2yearsago,whenthedefendantwasemployedbytheYBoroughCouncil,hewas
suspendedwhilehewasinvestigatedforasimilarallegedirregularity,andgivenafnalwarningastohis
futureconduct.Youhaveheardthisevidencebecauseitisdirectlyrelevanttoanissueyouhavetodecide
andnotinordertocausethedefendantunfairprejudice.
Thedefendanttoldyouthathedidnotonthatearlieroccasionthinkhehaddoneanythingwrongeither.He
thought,wronglyasitturnedout,thattheleaderofthecouncilhaddonesomethingsimilar.Thedefendant
acceptedthefnalwarningasacompromise.
Theprosecutiondoesnotrelyonthesepasteventstoprovethatthedefendanthasdoneitbefore.Theyrely
onlyuponthefactthat,whatevertheproprietyofthepreviousexpensesclaim,thedefendantreceiveda
warningastohisfutureconduct.
WhenconsideringwhetherthedefendantmadehisclaimforbusinessexpensestoXLtdknowingthatit
was untrue or misleading, and therefore dishonest, you are entitled to take account of the defendants
earlierwarningabouttheproprietyofclaimingexpensesforhisfamilyasiftheywereincurredasabusiness
expense.Whatmattersisnotwhethertheearlierclaimwasdishonestbutwhetherthedefendantmust,asa
resultoftheinvestigationandwarning,haveknownwherethelineofproprietyshouldbedrawn.
Itdoesnot,ofcourse,followthatbecausethedefendantwaswarnedbyapublicauthorityinthepast,he
wasnecessarilyactingdishonestlywhenhemadeasimilarclaimtoXLtd.Itisjustoneofmattersyouare
entitled to consider when judging whether he was acting honestly or dishonestly and when considering
his explanation in evidence. How much weight you attach to the defendants previous claim and its
consequencesaredecisionsforyoutomake.
11
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration possession of class A drug with intent to supply denial of knowledge of contents of
holdall left for minding relevance of previous convictions for drugs offences relevance of knowledge
of drugs trade
ThedefendantadmitsthathewasgiventheholdallbyhisfriendA.Hewastoldtominditforaday,after
whichitwouldbecollected.Heknewtheremustbesomethingintheholdall.Headmitsthattheholdallin
factcontained14packagesofcocaine.
However,thedefendantdeniesthathehadanyknowledgethatthesubstanceintheholdallwasacontrolled
drug.Ifthedefendantdidnotsuspectandhadnoreasontosuspectthattheholdallcontainedacontrolled
drugofanydescription,heisnotguiltyoftheoffencechargedintheindictment.Ifyouaresurethatthe
defendantsuspectedorhadreasontosuspectthattheholdallcontainedcontrolleddrugsyourverdictwould
beguilty.Ifyouarenotsureyourverdictwouldbenotguilty.
355
In considering the question whether the defendant had reason to suspect that the holdall contained
controlleddrugs,theprosecutionreliesonthecircumstancesinwhichtheholdallwasleftwiththedefendant
andhisknowledgeofAsinvolvementwithdrugsasalongtermuser.
Thedefendanttoldyouhewasnaive;asaresult,hissuspicionwasnotarousedanditdidnotoccurtohimto
askquestions.
Thedefendanthaspreviousconvictions12monthsand18monthsagoforpossessionofclassAdrugsand
skunk cannabis. You have heard this evidence because it is relevant to the question you have to decide
andnottoprejudiceyourmindsagainsthim.Youareentitledtotakethoseconvictionsintoaccountwhen
considering the truthfulness of the defendants claim to have been ignorant and naive. Is a man who is
orhasbeenhimselfadruguserand,onthataccount,familiarwiththeworldofdrugsmorelikelytohave
hissuspicionsraisedbyarequestofthiskind?Bearinmindthatthedefendantwasconvictedsometime
agoandthatthedefendantdeniesthathehassincebeenadruguser.Donotjumptotheconclusionthat
becausethedefendantwasinthepastadruguserhemustbeguilty.Thisisjustoneofcircumstancesyou
shouldconsider.Thedefendantsconvictionscannotaloneprovehisguilt.
Sources
Archbold13-1/10;13-25/119;BlackstoneF12.1/47
Footnotes
355
Seesection28(2)MisuseofDrugsAct1971andLambert[2002]2AC545
12
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Section 101(1)(e): Evidence of Substantial Probative Value in Relation to an
Important Matter in Issue Between a Defendant and a Co-Defendant
Introduction
1. Section101(1)(e)CriminalJusticeAct2003permitsevidenceofthebadcharacterofadefendant(D2)
tobegivenontheapplicationofanotherco-accused(D1),butonlyiftheevidencehassubstantial
probativevalueinrelationtoanimportantmatterinissuebetweenthem.Thiswillusuallyarisewhenthe
defendantsareengagedincut-throatdefences.
2. Gateway(e)isnotlimitedtoevidenceofpropensitytountruthfulnessbut,ifthatisthepurposefor
admittingtheevidence,itmayonlybeadmitted(section104(1))ifthenatureorconductofD2scaseis
suchastoundermineD1sdefence.Section104provides:
Matterinissuebetweenthedefendantandaco-defendant
(1) Evidencewhichisrelevanttothequestionwhetherthedefendanthasapropensitytobe
untruthfulisadmissibleonthatbasisundersection101(1)(e)onlyifthenatureorconductof
hisdefenceissuchastounderminetheco-defendantsdefence.
(2)Onlyevidence
(a)whichistobe(orhasbeen)adducedbytheco-defendant,or
(b)whichawitnessistobeinvitedtogive(orhasgiven)incross-examinationbytheco-
defendant,
isadmissibleundersection101(1)(e).
3. Oncethethresholdtestispassedthejudgehasnodiscretiontoexcludetheevidence.
4. TheCourtofAppealhasinthreecasesgivenawideinterpretationtothescopeofgateway(e).In
Lawson
356
D1,D2andD3werechargedjointlywithmanslaughter.D3,whopleadedguilty,hadpushed
V,anon-swimmer,intodeepwaterandVdrowned.D1andD2eachgaveevidencewhoseeffectwasto
underminetheothersaccountofhisownintention.TheCourtupheldthetrialjudgesdecisiontopermit
D1toadduceD2sconvictionforassault.HughesLJsaid:
357
28Inorderfortheevidenceofhis[D2s]convictiontobeadmissible,twofurtherconditions[thefrstbeing
theimportanceofthematterinissue]hadtobemet:
(a)becauseitwasaquestionofLawsonstruthfulnessorcredibilityasawitness,thebadcharacter
evidencecouldbeadducedonlyifthenatureorconductofhisdefencewassuchastounderminethe
defenceofKing(sees.104(1));and
(b)ifthatconditionwassatisfed,thebadcharacterevidencehadtohavesubstantialprobativevalue
inrelationtotheissueofLawsonstruthfulnessorcredibility.Forthatsees.101(1)(e).
Footnotes
356
[2007]1WLR1191;[2007]1CrAppR11;[2006]EWCACrim2572
357
At28and29
13
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
29 It is apparent that there is an element of overlap between the questions whether there arose an
importantmatterinissuebetweenthedefendants,whetherthedefenceofLawsonunderminedthatof
Kingandwhethertheproposedevidencehadsubstantialprobativevalue.This,asitseemstous,willoften
bethecasebutitremainsnecessaryforthequestiontobeaddressedseriatim.
Hecontinuedatparagraph34:
A defendant who is defending himself against the evidence of a person whose history of criminal
behaviour or other misconduct is such as to be capable of showing him to be unscrupulous and/or
otherwiseunreliableshouldbeenabledtopresentthathistorybeforethejuryforitsevaluationofthe
evidenceofthewitness.Suchsuggestedunreliabilitymaybecapableofbeingshownbywidelydiffering
conduct, ranging from large scale drug-or people-traffcking via housebreaking to criminal violence.
Whether in a particular case it is fact capable of having substantive probative value in relation to the
witnessreliabilityisforthetrialjudgetodetermineonallthefactsofthecase.
5. InRosato
358
theCourtfollowedLawson.OnachargeofarsonD1andD2eachgaveevidencethatthe
otheractedalone.D1waspermittedtoadduceinevidenceD2sconvictionsfordishonesty.
6. InJarvis
359
therewasacut-throatdefencebetweenD1andD2whowerebothchargedwiththeft
ofjewelleryfromV.Eachsaidtheotherhadlastbeeninpossessionofthejewellery.D2madealate
applicationtoadduceevidencethatD1hadintherecentpastdishonestlyrunupacreditcarddebtof
75,000usingacompanycreditcard.TheCourtheldthattheevidencewasrightlyadmittedwhetherit
wasevidenceofapropensityforuntruthfulnessornot.
7. Thus,previousconvictionsmaybeadmissiblenotwithstandingthattheyareincapableofestablishinga
propensityforuntruthfulness.Itisenoughif(1)theissuebetweenthedefendantsisimportantand(2)
theevidenceofbadcharacterisofsubstantialprobativevalueinaconsiderationofthatissue.
Directions
Discussionwiththeadvocatesisrequired.
Evidenceadmittedundergateway(e)isunlikelytobecomerelevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetween
theprosecutionandthedefendantifithasnotalreadybeenadmittedundergateway(d)ontheapplicationof
theprosecution.Ifithasbecomerelevant(e.g.topropensitytocommitsuchanoffence)thejurywillrequirea
directionexplainingitsrelevanceinthatcontext.Ifitisnotrelevanttopropensitytocommittheoffenceand
thereisariskthatthejurymaytreatitassuchtheyshouldbewarnedagainstusingitforthatpurpose.
WherethesolepurposeoftheevidenceistobalanceD2sattempttoundermineD1scasethedirectioncan
begivenquiteshortly.
360
Footnotes
358
[2008]EWCACrim1243
359
[2008]EWCACrim488
360
Rosatoat26
14
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration D2 blames D1 D2 has relevant convictions but he has always pleaded guilty
relevance to assessment of D2s evidence - warning against using convictions to support prosecution
case
InthecourseofhiscaseandduringhisevidenceD2hassoughttoplaceallblameforthisoffenceonD1.
Ihavealreadyadvisedcautionwhenyouareconsideringwhatonedefendanthassaidagainsttheinterests
ofanother.
YouhaveheardevidenceofD2sconvictionsforwounding,burglaryandtheft.Whenassessinghowmuch
reliance,ifany,youcanplaceonD2saccusationagainstD1,youareentitledtotakeintoaccountwhatyou
knowaboutD2spastconduct.ItissubmittedonbehalfofD1thatD2spastbehaviourdemonstrateshis
willingnesstoengageinconductwhichisdeceitful,unscrupulousandviolent.ItissubmittedonbehalfofD2
thatwhilehehasbeenconvictedinthepastithasalwaysbeenuponhisownadmissionand,therefore,his
convictionsdemonstrateonlyhistruthfulnessasawitness.
WhethertheseconvictionsassistyoutojudgethereliabilityofD2saccusationsagainstD1,andifsotowhat
extent,isforyoutodecide.
Thereisnootherrespectinwhichthoseconvictionsarerelevant.Inparticular,theydonotinanywayassist
theprosecutiontoproveitscaseagainstD2.
1S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Section 101(1)(f): Evidence to Correct a False Impression Given By the
Defendant
Introduction
1. Section105CriminalJusticeAct2003provides:
Evidencetocorrectafalseimpression
(1) Forthepurposesofsection101(1)(f)
(a)thedefendantgivesafalseimpressionifheisresponsibleforthemakingofanexpress
orimpliedassertionwhichisapttogivethecourtorjuryafalseormisleadingimpression
aboutthedefendant;
(b) evidence to correct such an impression is evidence which has probative value in
correctingit.
(2) Adefendantistreatedasbeingresponsibleforthemakingofanassertionif
(a)theassertionismadebythedefendantintheproceedings(whetherornotinevidence
givenbyhim),
(b)theassertionwasmadebythedefendant
(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with
whichheischarged,or
(ii) on being charged with the offence or offcially informed that he might be
prosecutedforit,
andevidenceoftheassertionisgivenintheproceedings,
(c)theassertionismadebyawitnesscalledbythedefendant,
(d)theassertionismadebyanywitnessincross-examinationinresponsetoaquestion
askedbythedefendantthatisintendedtoelicitit,orislikelytodoso,or
(e) the assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces
evidenceofitintheproceedings.
(3) Adefendantwhowouldotherwisebetreatedasresponsibleforthemakingofanassertion
shallnotbesotreatedif,ortotheextentthat,hewithdrawsitordisassociateshimself
fromit.

(4) Whereitappearstothecourtthatadefendant,bymeansofhisconduct(otherthanthe
givingofevidence)intheproceedings,isseekingtogivethecourtorjuryanimpression
abouthimselfthatisfalseormisleading,thecourtmayifitappearsjusttodosotreatthe
defendantasbeingresponsibleforthemakingofanassertionwhichisapttogivethat
impression.
(5) Insubsection(4)conductincludesappearanceordress.
(6) Evidenceisadmissibleundersection101(1)(f)onlyifitgoesnofurtherthanisnecessary
tocorrectthefalseimpression.
(7) Onlyprosecutionevidenceisadmissibleundersection101(1)(f).
1o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thus,thefalseimpressionitissoughttocorrectmayhavebeengivenininterviewundercautionwiththe
defendant,orinevidencebythedefendanthimselforbyanotherattheinvitationofthedefence.
361
2. Bysubsection(3),thedefendantsresponsibilityforthefalseimpressionmaybeavoidedifhewithdraws
ordisassociateshimselffromit.Thus,wheretheimpressionisgivenininterview,itmaybeavoidedby
agreededitingprovidedthattheinterviewisnottherebydeprivedofitseffect.Where,however,the
defendantmaintainedthefalseimpressioninevidenceuntilforcedincrossexaminationtoconcede,the
prosecutionwaspermittedtoadducethecontraryevidence,sincetheconcessioncouldnotproperlybe
describedasawithdrawalordisassociation.
362
3. InB
363
thedefendantwaschargedwithsexualoffencesagainstchildren,includingtherapeofhis13
yearolddaughter.Ininterviewhehadbeenaskedwhetherhehadanysexualinterestinchildren.The
defendantrepliedNo,notatall.Thatsdisgustingtoeventhinkaboutthat.Theprosecutionadduced
thereplyininterviewwiththeintentionofapplyingfortheadmissionofevidenceofawitnesswhosaid
thatwhenshewasagedabout14yearsthedefendanthadshownherabookaboutsexpositions.The
trialjudgeadmittedtheevidence.Thecourtdeclaredthatthecalculateduseofgateway(f)totrigger
evidenceofthiskindwasunfair,andnotedtheabilityofthedefendanttowithdrawafalseimpression.
Sinceinthatcase,however,thecourtalsoapprovedtheadmissioninevidenceofapreviousconvictionfor
rapeofa16yearoldinsupportofanassertionofpropensitytorape,itwasrecognisedthatwithdrawalof
theimpressionmadeininterviewwouldhardlyhaveassistedthedefendant.
4. Oncethethresholdtoadmissibilityispassed,section78PACE1984providestheonlydiscretionto
exclude.
Directions
Itisunlikelythattheevidencewillalsoberelevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetweentheprosecution
andthedefenceunlesstheprosecutionhasalreadymadeasuccessfulapplicationundergateway(d).Ifitis,
thejurywillrequireanexplanationofitsrelevanceinthatrespectafterdiscussionwiththeadvocates.
Illustration in interview the defendant claims he would never use violence previous conviction for
burglary involving violence relevant to false impression, credibility and propensity warnings about
propensity
Youhaveheardthatthedefendanthasapreviousconvictionforburglary.Thefactsoftheburglary,which
thedefendantnowadmits,werethat,havinggainedentrytothehomeofanelderlyresident,sheconfronted
himandhepushedhertothegroundinordertomakegoodhisescape.Thatknowledgecanaffectyour
considerationoftheevidenceintwoways.
Thefrstconcernsyourassessmentofthetruthfulnessofthedefendantsinterviewundercautionandhis
evidence.Ininterviewthedefendantsaidhewouldneveruseviolence,leastofallagainstanelderlyperson.
Ithasbeenshownthatthedefendanthasinthepastusedviolencetowardsanelderlyperson.Askedin
evidencetoexplainhisremarkininterview,thedefendantsaidhehadnotmeanttoconcealanything;he
Footnotes
361
Seesection105CriminalJusticeAct2003
362
363
[2008]EWCACrim1850
17
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
wastalkingabouthisstateofmindwhenhewasinterviewed,notwhathehaddoneinthepast.Youmust
judgethedefendantstruthfulnessininterviewandinevidence.Ifyouconcludedthatthedefendantwas,
ininterview,givingadistortedimpressionofhimself,thatconclusioncouldnot,ofcourse,provehisguiltof
robbery.Atmostitwouldhelptocorrectanysuchimpression.Ifyouarenotsurethatthedefendantwas
tryingtocreateafalseimpressionofhimselfthenhispreviousconvictionisofnoassistanceinthisrespect.
Secondly, the prosecution draws attention to the similarity between the defendants conduct during the
burglaryandthefactsofthepresentrobbery.Visanelderlymanwhowaspushedtothegroundbefore
his wallet was stolen. He has identifed the defendant as the robber. The prosecution argues that the
defendantsconductduringtheburglarydemonstratesthathehasawillingnessorpropensitytouseforce
againstavulnerablevictimwhencommittinganoffenceoftheft.Thatpropensitymakesitmorelikelythat
thedefendantwastherobber.Youshouldfrstconsiderwhetherthefactsoftheburglarydodemonstrate
inthedefendantapropensitytocommitcrimebyusingforcetowardsavulnerablevictim.Ifyouaresure
theydo,youareentitledtotreatthatconclusionassomesupportfortheidentifcationbyAthatitwasthis
defendantwhorobbedhim.Whetheritdoessupporttheprosecutioncaseand,ifso,towhatextent,are
bothmattersforyoutodecide.
Itisarguedonbehalfofthedefendantthattheoffencescommittedwereverydifferentinkind.Onewasa
burglaryduringwhichtheconfrontationwasunexpected;theotherwasthedeliberatetargetingofanelderly
victim.Itissubmitteditwouldbeunsafetoconcludethatthedefendanthadanypropensitytocommitan
offencesuchasrobbery.
You must judge these competing submissions. Please remember that you must be sure about the
identifcation. Do not give undue prominence to the facts of the previous conviction. The defendants
convictionforburglarycannot,ofitself,provehisguiltofrobbery.Justbecausethedefendantbehavedbadly
onapreviousoccasiondoesnotmeanthatheactedastheprosecutionallegeonthisoccasion.
Illustration charge of fraud defendant claims he is not the sort of person convictions for theft
warning against treating as evidence of propensity to commit fraud
Thedefendantischargedwithfraudbyobtainingmoneydishonestlyfromhouseholderstowhomhefalsely
claimedthattheirroofsneededurgentrepair.
Youhaveheardthatthedefendanthaspreviousconvictionsfortheftfromshops.Youhaveheardabout
themonlybecause,duringhisevidence,thedefendantassertedthatheisnotthekindofmanwhowould
actdeceitfullyastheprosecutionallege.Hadthatassertiongoneunchallengedyoumayhavebeenleftwith
afalseormisleadingimpressionaboutthedefendantscharacter.Thatiswhyyouheardabouthisprevious
convictions.Whenaskedtoexplainhisevidence,thedefendantsaidhehadnointentionofmisleadingyou.
Hecontinuedtomaintainthatheisnotthekindofmanwhowouldmakeapproachestoelderlyresidents
with the intention of deceiving them. You must judge whether the defendant was attempting to give a
falseimpressionaboutthenatureofhischaracter.Ifyouconcludethathewasnotormaynothavebeen
attemptingtogiveafalseimpressionofhimself,theseconvictionsarequiteirrelevantandyoushouldput
themaside.
Whiletheftfromshopsisakindofdishonestywhichyoumayconcludehasanelementofdeceptionabout
it, the circumstances of the offences of the fraud now alleged are very different from shoplifting. Those
convictionsarethereforeirrelevantexcepttocorrectanyfalseimpressiongiveninevidence.Theyareofno
otherassistancetoyouinjudgingwhethertheprosecutionhasproveditscase.
18
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Section 101(1)(g): Defendants Attack on Another Persons Character
Introduction
1. Section106CriminalJusticeAct2003provides:
Attackonanotherpersonscharacter
(1) Forthepurposesofsection101(1)(g)adefendantmakesanattackonanotherpersons
characterif
(a)headducesevidenceattackingtheotherpersonscharacter,
(b) he (or any legal representative appointed under section 38(4) of the Youth Justice
andCriminalEvidenceAct1999(c.23)tocross-examineawitnessinhisinterests)asks
questionsincross-examinationthatareintendedtoelicitsuchevidence,orarelikelytodo
so,or
(c)evidenceisgivenofanimputationabouttheotherpersonmadebythedefendant
(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with
whichheischarged,or
(ii) on being charged with the offence or offcially informed that he might be
prosecutedforit.
(2) Insubsection(1)evidenceattackingtheotherpersonscharactermeansevidencetothe
effectthattheotherperson
(a)hascommittedanoffence(whetheradifferentoffencefromtheonewithwhichthe
defendantischargedorthesameone),or
(b)hasbehaved,orisdisposedtobehave,inareprehensibleway;
andimputationabouttheotherpersonmeansanassertiontothateffect.
(3) Onlyprosecutionevidenceisadmissibleundersection101(1)(g).
2. Thusanattackonanotherpersonscharacterincludesanimputationmadebythedefendantthatthe
otherpersonhasbehavedorisdisposedtobehaveinareprehensibleway.Itfollowsthatevidenceofthe
defendantsbadcharactermaybeadmittedundergateway(g)ifthedefendantscaseisthatthevictims
ownbehaviourwasreprehensible.
3. Theevidencemustnot,however,beadmitted(section101(3))ifonanapplicationbythedefendant
itappearsthattheadmissionoftheevidencewouldhavesuchanadverseeffectonthefairnessofthe
proceedingsthatitoughtnottobeadmitted.Section78PACE1984alsoapplies.
4. InNelson
364
thedefendantclaimedininterviewthatanallegationofaffraywastheresultofaconspiracy
betweenVandhisneighbourtofabricateacaseagainsthim.Healsoassertedthattheneighbourwasa
drugtaker.Theneighboursevidencewasnotreliedonbytheprosecution.Thetrialjudgepermittedthe
prosecutiontoadduceevidenceofthedefendantsconvictionsfordrugsoffences.TheCourtofAppeal
Footnotes
364
[2006]EWCACrim3412,[2007]CrimLR709
1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
madeobservationsontheappropriateuseofsection101(1)(g)bytheprosecution.Itwouldrarelybethe
casethatthedefendantsconvictionsshouldbeadmittedbyreasonofanimputationmadeininterview
againstanindividualotherthanawitnessoravictim.Theprosecutionshouldnotadduceevidenceofan
interviewsimplyforthepurposeofsettingupthedefendantforanapplicationundergateway(g).Quite
apartfromthedoubtfulrelevanceoftheaccusationmadeagainsttheneighbour,therewasunfairnessin
raisingsatelliteissues.InNelson,however,thesameaccusationwasmadeagainstVincrossexamination
anditcontinuedtoembracetheneighbour.MrNelsonsconvictionswereproperlyadmitted.
Directions
Itnotinfrequentlyhappensthattheprosecutionwilldeferanapplicationundergateway(d),orthatthe
judgewillpostponeconsiderationofagateway(d)application,inordertoallowtheprosecutioncaseto
developbeforejudgingitsmerits.Inthemeantime,itbecomesclearfromcross-examinationonbehalfofthe
defendantthattheevidencewillbeadmissibleundergateway(g).Itwillalwaysbenecessarytoconsiderand
discusswiththeadvocatesthequestionwhetherthejurymaytreatgateway(g)evidenceofbadcharacteras
relevanttoanyothermatterinissue.
Analysisisimportantbecausethereisadifferenceofsubstanceinthejurystaskofexaminingevidence
toassess(1)thecredibilityofanattackbythedefendantonanotherscharacterand(2)theexistenceofa
propensity(a)tocommittheoffenceortoactasallegedbytheprosecutionor(b)foruntruthfulness.
365
If,onanalysisofthebadcharacterevidence,itcouldnotfairlybetakentodemonstratepropensityorto
provesomeothermatterinissue,thejudgeshouldgivethejuryanexplicitwarning.Thisproblemarosein
Lafayette
366
wheretheevidencewasadmittedundergateway(g)buttherewassomedoubtwhetheritcould
beutilisedbythejuryforwiderpurposes.HooperLJsaid
367
:
In many cases at least some of the bad character evidence admitted under gateway (g) will also be
admissibleundergateway(d)andthusentitlethejudgetogiveapropensitydirection(seeHighton[2005]
EWCACrim1985).Whatisthepositionto-dayiftheevidencewhichisadmissibleundergateway(g)isnot
admissibleundergateway(d)toshowpropensity?Forexample,whatshouldthejudgesayiftheevidence
undergateway(g)showedonlypreviousconvictionsforoffencesofdishonestyand/ordrugsoffencesand/or
offencesofviolence,fromanyofwhichthejurywouldnotbeentitledtoconcludethattheyshowedonthe
partofthedefendantapropensitytocommitthekindofoffenceswithwhichheischarged?Wethinkthat
thebettercourseisforthedirectiontobesofashionedinagateway(g)onlycasethatthejuryunderstand
thattherelevanceofthesekindsofpreviousconvictionsgoestocreditandtheyshouldnotconsiderthatit
showsapropensitytocommittheoffencetheyareconsidering,atleastifthereisariskthattheymightdo
so.Thatisnottosaythatthewordscreditandpropensityshouldbeorneedtobeused.
AstheCourtsaidinCampbell
368
thejuryisnotconcernedwithgateways.Thejuryneedstobetoldhowthe
evidenceisrelevanttotheirconsiderationofthecase,adirectionwhichshouldbegiveninitsproperfactual
context.
Footnotes
365
SeeBadCharacterSection101(1)(d):EvidenceRelevanttoanImportantMatterinIssueBetweentheProsecutionandthe
Defence(i)PropensitytoCommitOffencesoftheKindChargedand(ii)PropensityforUntruthfulnessabove
366
[2008]EWCACrim3238
367
49
368
[2007]1WLR2798;[2007]EWCACrim1472
200
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration defendant charged with offence of violence defence of self defence V accused of
lying bad character evidence admitted through gateway (g) includes offences of violence whether
defendants accusation is worthy of belief relevance of previous convictions to defence limitations of
evidence of propensity
Youhaveheardevidencethatthedefendanthasconvictionsforburglary,wounding,assaultoccasioning
actualbodilyharmandthreateningwordsandbehaviour.Imustexplainhowthatevidenceisrelevantto
yourconsiderationofthecase.
ThedefendantischargedwithwoundingVwithintenttodoreallyseriousinjury.Theprosecutioncaseis
thatthedefendantfornoapparentreasontookexceptiontoVsgoodhumourwithhisfriends,pickedup
apintglassandthrustitviciouslyintoVsface.WhenVwascrossexaminedonbehalfofthedefendantit
wassuggestedtohimthathewaslying.ItwassaidthatVjumpedonthedefendantsback,thedefendant
instinctivelyturned,and,withtheglassinhisrighthand,swungouttodefendhimself.Allthiswasdeniedby
V.Whenhegaveevidencethedefendantrepeatedthisaccountandtoldyouhehadnointentionofcausing
injury.Hisactionwasinstinctiveratherthandeliberate.Heswungoutinstinctivelyinselfdefenceanddid
notappreciatethattheglasswasinhishand.
ThedefendantscasehasinvolvedtheaccusationthatVwastheaggressor.Hehas,thedefendantsays,
madeupthecircumstancesoftheincident.YouwillneedtodecidewhetheryouaccepttheevidenceofV
andinordertodosoyouwillhavetoconsiderwhethertheaccusationoflyingandinventionmadebythe
defendantisworthyofbelief.InfairnesstoVandtoyouitwouldbewrongforyoutobeleftinignorance
ofthecharacterofthemanmakingtheaccusation.Youareentitledtohaveregardtothedefendantsown
characterasrevealedbyhispreviousconvictionswhendecidingwhatthetruthis.Ihavesaidyoumayhave
regardtohischaracter.Whetherandtowhatextentitassistsyou,youmustjudge.
Depending on your view, there is a second way in which the defendants convictions for violence may
assistyou.Iamnowexcludingtheconvictionforburglarybecauseinthiscontextithasnorelevance.The
defendants case is that V was the aggressor. The defendant says he acted instinctively in self defence.
In judging whether that case is true or may be true you are entitled to have regard to the defendants
ownpastbehaviour.Hisconvictionforwoundingarosefromanotherglassingincident;hisconvictionfor
assaultoccasioningactualbodilyharmarosefromanargumentwithaneighbouroveraparkingspace;his
threateningwordsandbehaviourweredirectedatalocalshopkeeperwhorefusedtoservehimwithalcohol
oncredit.Onnoneoftheseoccasionsdidheadvanceanyexcuseforviolence.
The prosecution suggests to you that the defendant has a propensity for unlawful violence committed
suddenlyandintemper.ThatmakesitmorelikelythatVsaccountoftheincidentistrueandthatonthis
occasion,asontheothers,thedefendantactedsuddenlyandinbadtemper.
The defendant admits his previous convictions and the circumstances of them. You should frst consider
whether this evidence establishes a propensity in the defendant for unlawful violence as the prosecution
suggests.Ifyouaresureitdoesthenyoumayhaveregardtothatconclusionwhendecidingwhetherthe
defendantattackedVunlawfullyonthisoccasion.Whetheritdoesassistyouinthisregardand,ifso,what
weightyouattachtoitinyourdeliberationsisamatterforyou.
Itwassubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantthattheconvictionforwoundingisnow4yearsold.Themost
recentconvictionforthreateningwordsandbehaviourwas12monthsago.Itwassaidthatthecircumstances
wereverydifferentfromthosenowalleged.Hepleadedguiltyoneachoccasion.Forthesereasons,itwas
submitted,youshouldhavenoregardtoanypropensitythattheymaythenhavedemonstrated.
201
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youmustjudgethesecompetingsubmissions.Pleaserememberthatthebadcharacterevidenceisjustpart
oftheevidenceinthecase;howimportantapartisfortojudge,butbadcharactercannotaloneprove
guilt.Evenifyouconcludedthatthedefendanthasapropensityforunlawfulviolencethatdoesnot,ofitself,
meanheactedunlawfullyonthisoccasion.Youmust,intheend,resolvethequestionwhethertheevidence
ofVwastruthfulandreliable.Ifyoudoconcludethatthedefendanthasapropensityforunlawfulviolence,
andthatheactedunlawfullyonthisoccasion,hispropensityisnotlikelytohelpyoutodecidewhether
heintendedtocauseVreallyseriousinjury.Inordertomakethatdecisionyoushouldconcentrateonthe
circumstancesoftheassaultwiththeglassasyoufndthemtobe.
Illustration defendant charged with theft defence involves imputation upon the character of V
previous convictions admitted
Whenthedefendantgaveevidenceyoulearnedthathehadpreviousconvictionsforobtainingpropertyby
deceptionandhandlingstolenproperty.Theywerecommitted15yearsagowhenhewasaged20.Hehas
afurtherconvictionforassaultingthepolicecommittedwhenhewasarrestedforadrink-drivingoffencelast
year.Ineedtoexplaintoyoutherelevanceofthatevidenceinyourdeliberations.
Thedefendantischargedwithfveoffencesoftheftofvaluableequipmentfromhisformeremployer,Mr
A.WhenMrAgaveevidenceitwassuggestedtohimthatthesewerenottheftsatall.Hehadaskedthe
defendanttoremovethepropertysothathecouldmakeafalseclaimtotheirvaluefromhisinsurers.MrA
deniedthataccusationemphatically.
Itfollowsthat,either,MrAhastoldyouthetruthandthedefendanthasmadeafalseimputationonhis
character,or,MrAhasmadeafalsecomplaintagainstthedefendanttoconcealhisownwrongdoing.In
judgingwhethertheaccusationmadebythedefendantagainstMrAhasanytruthinit,itisrightthatyou
shouldknowthecharacterofthemanmakingtheaccusation.Inconsideringwhatthetruthis,youare
entitled,therefore,tohavethedefendantsconvictionsinmind.
Itwasarguedonbehalfofthedefendantthatthedishonestyoffencesareverystale,andthattheassault
offence involved no dishonesty. You must have regard to these submissions which in themselves are, of
course,right.Itisyourdecisionwhetheryourknowledgeofthedefendantsconvictionshelpsyoutoresolve
thecentralissueoftruthfulnessand,ifso,whatweightyougivetoit.
Donot,however,fallintothetrapofthinkingthattheseconvictionshelptheprosecutioncaseinanyother
respect.Theydonot.Thefactthatthedefendantacteddishonestly15yearsagocanhavenobearingon
thequestionwhetherhewaslikelytostealfromhisemployerontheseoccasions.
Sources
Archbold13-1/119;BlackstoneF12.1/51;EvidenceofBadCharacter,2ndEd2009,ProfessorJohnSpencer
202
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 12: cross aDMissibility
Cross Admissibility and Bad Character
Introduction
1. Judgeswhotrysexualoffencescommonlypreparedirectionstothejurywhichinvolvemultiple
complaintsbydifferentcomplainants.Theremaybesimilaritiesbetweenthecomplaintswhichare,
byreasonoftheirsimilarity,mutuallysupportive;ortheexistenceofmultiplecomplaintsmayrebuta
defenceofinnocentassociation.Thisisthecontextinwhichthetermcrossadmissibilityhasbecome
familiar,althoughcrossadmissibilityisnotconfnedtotrialsofsexualoffences,particularlywherethe
prosecutioncasegainsitsstrengthfromthecumulativeeffectoftheevidence.Suchevidencewas
adducedinsupportofchargesofrobberyinDM
369
,Wallace
370
andFreemanandCrawford
371
.
2. Section101(1)(d)CriminalJusticeAct2003enablesevidenceprovingguiltofoneoffencechargedinthe
indictmenttoestablishapropensitytocommitoffenceschargedinothercountsintheindictment.This
hasaddedaseconddimensiontotheexpressioncrossadmissibilitybutitisimportanttodistinguish
betweenthetwo.
3. Section112(2)provides:
Whereadefendantischargedwithtwoormoreoffencesinthesamecriminalproceedings,this
Chapter(exceptsection101(3))haseffectasifeachoffencewerechargedinseparateproceedings;
andreferencestotheoffencewithwhichthedefendantischargedaretobereadaccordingly.
4. Accordingly,theevidenceadducedinsupportofcount1mayberelevant(asbeforethe2003ActDPP
v.P
372
)tocounts2and3becauseitnegativescoincidenceorrebutsadefence,and/or,because(sincethe
2003Act)itestablishesapropensitytocommitoffencesofthekindchargedincount1and,assuch,is
relevanttoanimportantissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefenceincounts2and3(seeDirections
below).
5. Thequestionwhichhascauseddiffcultyiswhether,inacaseinwhichevidencesupportingonecount
iscross-admissibletosupportanothercount,abadcharacterdirectionisrequiredand,ifso,inwhat
terms.
373
6. ThesediffcultieshavelargelybeenresolvedbyguidancegivenbytheCourtofAppealinDM
374
and
FreemanandCrawford
375
.LathamLJinFreemanandCrawfordsaid
376
:
Footnotes
369
[2008]EWCACrim1544
370
[2008]1WLR572,[2007]EWCACrim1760
371
372
[1991]2AC447
373
SeeWallace[2008]1WLR572;[2007]EWCACrim1760;Chopra[2007]1CrAppR225;[2006]EWCACrim2133;S[2008]
EWCACrim544;DM[2008]EWCACrim1544
374
(supra)
375
376
At20
203
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
InsomeofthejudgmentssinceHanson,theimpressionmayhavebeengiventhatthejury,initsdecision
makingprocessincross-admissibilitycasesshouldfrstdeterminewhetheritissatisfedontheevidencein
relationtooneofthecountsofthedefendantsguiltbeforeitcanmoveontousingtheevidenceinrelation
tothatcountindealingwithanyothercountintheindictment.Agoodexampleisthejudgmentofthis
courtinS.
377
Weconsiderthatthisistoorestrictiveanapproach.Whilstthejurymustberemindedthatit
hastoreachaverdictoneachcountseparately,itisentitled,indeterminingguiltinrespectofanycount,
tohaveregardtotheevidenceinregardtoanyothercount,oranyotherbadcharacterevidenceifthat
evidenceisadmissibleandrelevantinthewaywehavedescribed.Itmaybethatinsomecasesthejury
willfnditeasiertodecidetheguiltofadefendantontheevidencerelatingtothatcountalone.Thatdoes
notmeanthatitcannot,inothercases,usetheevidenceinrelationtotheothercountorcountstohelpit
decideonthedefendantsguiltinrespectofthecountthatitisconsidering.Todootherwisewouldfailto
givepropereffecttothedecisiononadmissibility.
Directions
Thefrstquestionwhichthetrialjudgeneedstoresolveiswhethertheevidencetheprosecutionhas
adducedinsupport,say,ofcount1isevidenceofadispositiontowardsmisconductbythedefendant,
nothavingtodowiththefactsoftheoffencewithwhichheischargedchargedin,say,counts2and
3.Ifitis,then,forthepurposesofcounts2and3,itisevidenceofbadcharacterwithinthemeaningof
section98byreasonoftheeffectofsection112(2).If,therefore,theevidenceofcomplainantA(count
1)istobeadmittedinsupportoftheevidenceofcomplainantB(count2),andcomplainantC(count3),
itmustpassthroughoneofthesection101(1)gatewaystoadmissibility,andabadcharacterdirection
mayberequired.Commonly,Asevidencewillberelevanttoanimportantmatterinissuebetweenthe
defendantandtheprosecutionuponcounts2and3becauseitissupportiveofthetruthofBsandCs
complaints.
378
Thesecondquestionforthejudgeisforwhatpurposethejurymayusetheevidence.Itisatthispoint
thatitisimportanttodistinguishbetween(i)evidencewhichtendstonegativecoincidence(ortorebuta
defence)andforthatreasonstrengthenstheprosecutioncaseand(ii)evidenceofpropensitytocommit
theoffence:
(i) Thefactthatseveralcomplaintsofasimilarkindaremadebydifferentwitnesseswhohavenot
colludedorbeeninfuenceddeliberatelyorunintentionallybythecomplaintsoftheothers,maybe
powerfulevidencethatcoincidenceormalicetowardsthedefendant(orinnocentassociationbetween
thedefendantandthecomplainants)canbeexcluded.
379
Thus,theevidenceofeachcomplainantis
supportiveofthetruthoftheothers.
Footnotes
377
[2008]EWCACrim544
378
Thecriticalevidenceinsupportofcounts1and2neednot,ofcourse,betheevidenceofthecomplainants.Thequestionis
posedasifthejudgeweredealingwithasexualoffencescasesincethatisthecontextinwhichcrossadmissibilitymostfrequently
occurs.Theevidencemightjustaswellbecircumstantial.See,forexample,theanalysisofAikensLJinNorris[2009]EWCACrim
2697at80-87whereevidenceofbehaviourprovedinonecount(unlawfuladministrationofdrugsbyanurse)wasevidence
relevanttoproofofidentityoftheperpetratorofsimilaractsallegedinothercounts.
379
DPPv.Boardman[1975]AC421atp.421,...thepointisnotwhetherwhattheappellantissaidtohavesuggestedwouldbe,as
comingfromamiddle-agedactivehomosexual,initselfparticularlyunusualbutwhetheritwouldbeunlikelythattwoyouths
whoweresayinguntrulythatthedefendanthadmadehomosexualadvancestothemwouldhaveputsuchasuggestionintohis
mouth.,perLordCross;DPPv.P[1991]2AC447;DM[2008]EWCACrim1544at14-17
12: Cross adMissaBility
204
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(ii) Apropensitytocommitanoffenceisalsorelevanttoguiltonothercountsbut,beforethe
propensitycanbeutilisedbythejury,itmustbeproved.OnlyifthejuryissurethattheevidenceofA
istruecantheyconcludethatthedefendanthadapropensitytocommitthekindofoffencealleged
bycomplainantB.
380
Thethirdquestionforthejudgeiswhethertheevidenceofbadcharactermaybeusedbythejuryboth
(i)tonegativecoincidenceorrebutadefenceand(ii)toestablishpropensity.Ifso,thejurymayrequirean
explanationhowtheevidenceshouldbeapproachedinthesetwodifferentways.
Finally,iftheevidencemaybeusedtoestablishpropensity,thejuryshouldreceivetheconventional
warningsaboutitslimitationsbasedonthefactualcontextofthecase.
381
When to give both directions?

Thejudgementwhethertoexplainthataconclusionfavourabletotheprosecutionononecountmaybe
evidencefromwhichthejurycaninadditionfndapropensitytocommittheoffenceschargedinothercounts
isnotalwaysstraightforward.
Itissuggestedthatwheretheevidenceon,say,count1is,independentlycompellingand,consequently,the
juryislikelytowonderhowaverdictofguiltyinrespectofcount1mayaffecttheirconsiderationofcounts2
and3,thepropensitydirectionshouldbegiven,becauseitisonlyifthejuryissureofthepropensitythatthey
canutilisetheevidenceforthatpurpose.
Ontheotherhand,whereislittletochoosebetweenthestrengthoftheevidencesupportingeachofthe
countsthepropensitydirectionmayserveonlytoconfusebecause(1)thedirection,ifgiven,willbeburdened
withconditionalclausesand(2)inanyevent,therealquestionforthejuryinsuchacaseiswhetherthe
evidencesupportingeachcounttendstostrengthentheprosecutioncaseontheothers.
InCrawford,
382
thedefendantwaschargedwithtwostreetrobberiesthreeweeksapartcommittedinsimilar
circumstances.Eachcomplainantidentifedherattacker.Therewaslittle,ifanything,tochoosebetween
thestrengthoftheevidenceineachcount.Inaddition,however,theprosecutionwaspermittedtoadduce
evidenceofpreviousconvictionsforsimilaroffences.Thetrialjudgegavebothapropensitydirectionin
relationtothepreviousconvictionsandacross-admissibilitydirectioninrelationtothetwocountsinthe
indictment.Hisdirectionswereupheld.
Thejuryshouldalwaysberemindedoftheneedtoreturnseparateverdictsoneachcount.
Footnotes
380
DM(supra)at21;FreemanandCrawford[2008]EWCACrim1863at17-20
381
SeeChapter11BadCharacterofDefendantGeneralIntroductionandDirectionsGenerallyabove
382
[2008]EWCACrim1863
20S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration three counts charging a sexual offence committed against each complainant evidence
in support of count 2 independently compelling evidence of each complainant tending to negative
the defence of innocent association with the others count 2 evidence capable of supporting a
propensity to commit sexual offences against children directions both as to cross admissibility and
propensity need to return separate verdicts
Wehaveexaminedthelawrelatingtothe3countsintheindictment.Inowwanttogiveyousomelegal
directionsaboutyourapproachtotheevidencewhichconcernsthem.Althoughthesethreeincidentsare
separateandyoumustreachseparatedecisionsabouteachofthem,theevidenceupononecountiscapable
ofsupportingtheprosecutionscaseontheothers.Letmeexplain.
Cross Admissibility
Asyouknowthedefendantdeniesanysexualimproprietytowardsanyofthethreelittlegirls,Alison,Jade
andSophie.Hesayshiscontactwitheachgirlwasfriendlybutentirelyinnocent.Theprosecutionhaspointed
out,ontheotherhand,thattherearesimilaritiesinthedefendantsbehaviourasdescribedbyeachofthem.
Theprosecutionsuggeststoyouthatthatisnocoincidence.Thefactthatthreelittlegirlshavemadesimilar
butotherwiseunconnectedcomplaintsaboutthedefendantsbehaviourmakesitmorelikelythateachof
thosecomplaintsistrue.Inthatsensetheevidenceofeachofthethreecomplainantsiscapableoflending
supporttotheothers.
Youareperfectlyentitledtoviewtheevidenceinthiswaybutletmeexplainwhatshouldbeyourapproach.
Are the complaints independent of one another?
First,theprosecutionspointonlyhasforceifthecomplaintsmadearetrulyindependentofoneanother.
Ifonewitnesshasinfuencedanother,eitherdeliberatelyorunconsciously,tomakecomplaintsaboutthe
defendant,thenitwouldnotbesurprisingthattheywentontomakethosecomplaints.Inthateventnot
only would the prosecution argument fall away but it might also cast doubt upon the reliability of the
accusationstheymakeasawhole.
Letusthenconsidertheevidence.Thesethreegirlsallattendthesamejuniorschool.Twoofthem,Alisonand
Jade,areinthesameclassbutSophieistwoyearsbelowthem.Noneofthemisafriendoftheother.The
familiesarenotknowntooneanother.Noneofthemknewthattheotherswereknowntothedefendant.
DetectiveConstablePricehasexplainedhoweachgirlcametobeseenbyherandinterviewedonvideo.She
describedthecaretakentoensurethateachinterviewwasconductedindependentlyoftheothers.Onthe
faceofit,then,theseaccusationsagainstthedefendantappeartobeentirelyseparateandnonehasbeen
infuencedorcontaminatedbyanother.Counselforthedefendantsubmits:thatmaybehowitlooks,but
howcanwebesurethattherehasnotbeensomedeliberateorunconsciouscontaminationoftheevidence?
Youmustconsidertheevidenceandmakeyourowndecision.Ifyouaresurethatarealisticpossibilityof
infuence,consciousorunconscious,byeachgirloftheothershasbeenexcluded,thenyoucantreatthe
evidenceofeachcomplaintassupportiveoftheothersinthesenseIhavedescribed.
Towhatextentmaythewitnessessupporteachother?
20o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Second,youneedtoassessthevalueoftheevidence.Ifyouhavedecidedtheyareindependent,itfollows
thatthecloserthesimilaritiesbetweenthecomplaintsthelesslikelyitisthattheycanbeexplainedaway
ascoincidence.Itisforyoutodecidethedegreetowhichtheevidenceofonegirlassistsyoutoassessthe
evidenceoftheothers.Itmaylendpowerfulsupportoritmaynot.Youmustmakethatjudgement.
Propensity to commit sexual offences
Thereisanotherwayinwhichtheevidencesupportingonecountcanalsosupporttheprosecutioncaseon
theothers.TheprosecutioninvitesyouforthispurposetoconcentratesolelyontheevidenceofJadeandher
mother(count2).Jadetoldyouthatthedefendantwalkedherintothewoodalongsidetheplayareatolook
atthesnowdrops.Itwastherethatthedefendanttouchedherindecentlydownthefrontofhertrousers.
HermotherSandratoldyouthatshewaswatchingtheplayareafromherkitchenwindow.Onemoment
shesawJadeontheclimbingframe.ThenextmomentshethoughtshesawJadeenteringthewoodwitha
man.Sheranasfastshecould.AssheenteredthewoodJadewasrunningbacktowardsherinadistressed
condition.Sheimmediatelysaid,Thatmantouchedmedownthereandbegantocry.Thedefendantwas
walkingawayalonganotherpathtowardstheroad.Theprosecutionsubmitsthattheevidenceimplicating
thedefendantinthecount2offenceiscompelling.Ifyouagree,ifyouaresurethatthedefendantisguilty
ofcount2,theprosecutionsubmitsthatfactisrelevanttoanimportantmatterinissueoncounts1and3.
Hisguiltestablishesthathehasapropensityoratendencytocommitsexualoffencesofthistypeagainst
younggirls.ThedefendantsayshiscontactwithAlisonandSophiewasinnocent.Contrarytotheirevidence,
nothingsexualoccurred.Theprosecutionsuggeststhathispropensitytocommitsexualoffencesofthiskind
willhelpyoutoresolvethetruthofthecomplaintsbybothAlisonandSophieincounts1and3.
Decide count 2 frst
Again,thisisaperfectlyproperapproachtotheevidence.Ineedtoexplainhowyoushouldapproachitstep
bystep.First,decidewhetheryouaresurethatthedefendantisguiltyofcount2.
Are you sure the propensity is proved?
Ifyouaresureheis,askyourselveswhetherthatestablishes,sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendanthasa
propensitytocommitsexualoffencesagainstyounggirls.Ifso,itisforyoutodecidewhetherandtowhat
extentthatpropensityhelpsyoutoresolvethequestionwhetherheisguiltyalsoofcounts1and3.
Warning
Whenyouareconsideringthelastquestionrememberthatapropensitytocommitanoffenceofacertain
typedoesnotofitselfprovethatthedefendantcommittedsuchanoffenceonthisoccasion.Propensity,if
proved,isonlypartoftheevidenceinthecaseanditsimportanceshouldnotbeexaggerated.
207
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration three robberies charged against D1 and D2 some, but not compelling, evidence
implicating a defendant in each one previous conviction for burglary committed together
- cumulative effect of (1) similarity of each robbery, (2) evidence implicating one or other of the
defendants in each robbery, and (3) criminal association between the defendants propensity to
commit offences together - warning
Similarity of offences
D1andD2arechargedintheindictmentwiththreerobberies.Eachoftherobberieswascarriedoutby
twomen,onecarryingabaseballbatandtheothercarryingahandgun.Eachrobber,oneachoccasion,
waswearingaredscarftiedbehindhisheadtomaskhisface.CCTVevidencehasestablishedthatonewas
about61inheightandtheotherwasabout57.Bothwereofmuscularbuild.Thetallermancarriedthe
baseballbatandtheshortercarriedthehandgun.
Circumstantial case
TheCCTVevidencedoesnotidentifyeitheroftherobbers,nordoesanywitnessidentifythem.Thatmaynot
besurprisinggiventheirdisguise.Theprosecutioncaseisbasedoncircumstantialevidence,thecumulative
effectofwhichis,theysubmit,toidentifythedefendantsastherobbers.
First,therewasfoundinthehomeofD1afterhisarrestabaseballbatwhichisofthesamesizeandshape
asthebaseballbatcapturedontheCCTVflm.Heisofthesamestatureandbuildasthetallermanwiththe
baseballbatineachoftherobberies.D2isofthesamestatureandbuildastheshortermancarryingthe
handgunineachoftherobberies.Thehandgunhasneverbeenfound.AfterD2sarrestasquareredscarf
similarinappearancetothosewornbybothrobberswasfoundinadrawerinD2sbedroom.
Second,foundatthesceneofthesecondrobberywasamobiletelephone.Theidentityofthepersonholding
thenumberoftheSIMcardwasnotregistered,butstoredinitsmemorywasatelephonenumberagainst
thenameLyn.D2sgirlfriendiscalledLynandthatishernumber.AlsostoredagainstthenameMumwas
D2smotherstelephonenumber.IfyouaresurethatthephonebelongedtoD2itiscapableoflinkingD2to
thesecondrobbery.
Third, the defendants accept that they are close friends and associates. They have committed offences
togetheronotheroccasions.
Thereis,therefore,someevidencetolinkD1,throughhisheightandbuildandhispossessionofthebaseball
bat,toeachoftherobberies.ThereissomeevidencetolinkD2,throughhisheightandbuildandpossession
ofasquareredscarf,toeachoftherobberies.Thereisadditionalevidenceintheformofthemobilephone
tolinkD2tothesecondrobbery.Youshouldconsidertheevidencewhichlinks,frst,D1and,second,D2
separatelytoeachoftherobberies.
However,theprosecutionsubmitsthattheevidencederivesitsstrengthfromaconsiderationofitscumulative
effect.Youareaskedtolookattheevidenceasawhole.Itissubmittedthatifyoudo,youwillcometotwo
conclusions:(1)thatthethreerobberieswerecarriedoutbythesameteamoftwomenand(2)thatthose
twomenwerethedefendants.Inotherwords,youareinvitedtoconcludethatthesimilaritiesbetweenthe
robberiesandtherobbersineachcase,andthediscoveryoftheincriminatingarticles,thebaseballbat,the
redscarfandthemobilephone,istoounlikelyacombinationofeventstobeexplainedawayascoincidence;
theonlyreasonableexplanationisthatthedefendantsweretherobbersineachcase.
208
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Evidence to be considered separately and in the round
Imustexplainhowyoushouldapproachtheevidence.Theevidenceconcerningeachseparaterobberyis
relevanttoyourconsiderationoftheothers.Youshouldfrstexaminetheircircumstances.Dothecommon
featuresoftherobberies,includingtheCCTVevidence,leadyoutotheconclusionsothatyouaresurethat
thisisapatternofoffendingcarriedoutbythesameteamoftwo?Ifnot,thenyoumustlookatthecaseof
eachdefendantandeachrobberyseparately.
If,however,youaresurethethreerobberieswerecommittedbythesameteam,youshouldnextconsiderthe
evidencewhichcumulativelylinksthesetwodefendantstothem.
Thirdly,considertheimpact,ifany,ofyourknowledgethatthedefendantsareclosefriends.
Doesthatevidencedriveyoutothesureconclusionthattheteamwhichcarriedouttherobberiescomprised
thesetwodefendants?
Dependinguponyourconclusions,itispossibleforyoutofndthatinrespectofalloranyofthecounts(1)
bothdefendantsareguilty,(2)bothdefendantsarenotguilty,or(3)onedefendantbutnottheotheris
guilty.Bearinmindthattheprosecutionseekstoprovethecaseagainsteachdefendantbyrelyingupon
thecumulativeeffectoftheevidenceconcerningbothofthem.Iftheprosecutionfailstomakeyousureof
thatcumulativeeffect,youwillhavetoconsiderwhetherthecaseagainsteithermanisunderminedonany
individualcount.Rememberthatyoumustreturnaseparateverdictuponeachdefendantinrespectofeach
count.
Propensity to commit offences together
YouhaveheardevidencethatD1andD2have,ontwopreviousoccasions,beenconvictedofcommitting
criminal offences together. Six months before the frst robbery they committed an offence of burglary
together.BetweenthedatesofthesecondandthirdrobberiestheyjointlyassaultedVcausinghimactual
bodilyharm.Youmustnotletthatknowledgeprejudiceyouunfairlytowardsthem.Youhaveheardabout
thoseconvictionsforonereasononly.Theprosecutionsubmitsthatthesedefendantshaveapropensity,or
tendency,tocommitoffencesasateam.Theprosecutionsuggeststhatthefacttheywerecommittingother
offencestogethermakesitmorelikelythattheyactedtogethertocommittheserobberies.Ineedtogiveyou
afurtherlegaldirectionaboutthisevidence.
Whenyouareconsideringthecumulativeeffectofthecircumstances,oneofthosecircumstancesisthefact
thatthesetwodefendantshavecommittedoffencestogetheronotheroccasions.Youareentitledtotake
thatfactintoaccountwhenconsideringwhethertheyactedtogethertocommittheserobberies.Whatyou
shouldnotdoisjumptoanyconclusionswithoutaproperanalysisofalltheevidence.Itdoesnotfollowthat
becausetheyhaveactedtogethertocommitdifferentoffencesonotheroccasions,theymusthavecommitted
therobberiestogetherontheseoccasions.Youmustbecautiousnottoattachtoomuchsignifcancetothis
evidence,but,subjecttothatwarning,itisforyoutoassessitsweightandimportance.
Having reminded you of the prosecution case and given you directions how you should approach the
evidence,Ishallnowremindyouinsummaryofthedefendantscases.
Sources
Archbold13-37,38,63a;BlackstoneF12.30
20
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 13: baD character oF person
other than a DeFenDant
Introduction
1. Badcharacter,forthepurposeofsection100CriminalJusticeAct2003,isevidenceofmisconducton
adifferent
383
occasion,otherthanthatwhichhastodowiththeoffence(section98).Misconductis
thecommissionofanoffenceorotherreprehensiblebehaviour(section112).Thewordreprehensible
connotesculpabilityorblameworthiness.
384
2. Thisdoesnot,however,meanthatevidencehavingtodowiththefactsoftheoffencecannotbeadduced
atall.Itmaybeadmissibleatcommonlaw.
385
3. Section100provides:
Non-defendants bad character
(1)Incriminalproceedingsevidenceofthebadcharacterofapersonotherthanthedefendantis
admissibleifandonlyif
(a) itisimportantexplanatoryevidence,
(b) ithassubstantialprobativevalueinrelationtoamatterwhich
(i)isamatterinissueintheproceedings,and
(ii)isofsubstantialimportanceinthecontextofthecaseasawhole,
or
(c)allpartiestotheproceedingsagreetotheevidencebeingadmissible.
(2)Forthepurposesofsubsection(1)(a)evidenceisimportantexplanatoryevidenceif
(a) withoutit,thecourtorjurywouldfnditimpossibleordiffcultproperlytounderstand
otherevidenceinthecase,and
(b) itsvalueforunderstandingthecaseasawholeissubstantial.
(3)Inassessingtheprobativevalueofevidenceforthepurposesofsubsection(1)(b)thecourt
musthaveregardtothefollowingfactors(andtoanyothersitconsidersrelevant)
(a) thenatureandnumberoftheevents,orotherthings,towhichtheevidencerelates;
(b) whenthoseeventsorthingsareallegedtohavehappenedorexisted;
(c) where
(i)theevidenceisevidenceofapersonsmisconduct,and
13: Bad CharaCter of person other than a defendant
Footnotes
383
NotnecessarilyanearlieroccasionseeA[2009]EWCACrim513,inwhichthebadcharacterevidenceestablishedadisposition
tocommitsexualoffencesofakindallegedtohavebeencommittedbyhimmanyyearspreviously
384
385
SeeforexampleGreenwood[2005]1CrAppR7;[2004]EWCACrim1388at28-41
210
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(ii)itissuggestedthattheevidencehasprobativevaluebyreasonofsimilaritybetween
thatmisconductandotherallegedmisconduct,
thenatureandextentofthesimilaritiesandthedissimilaritiesbetweeneachofthealleged
instancesofmisconduct;
(d)where
(i)theevidenceisevidenceofapersonsmisconduct,
(ii)itissuggestedthatthatpersonisalsoresponsibleforthemisconductcharged,and
(iii)theidentityofthepersonresponsibleforthemisconductchargedisdisputed,
theextenttowhichtheevidenceshowsortendstoshowthatthesamepersonwasresponsible
eachtime.
(4)Exceptwheresubsection(1)(c)applies,evidenceofthebadcharacterofapersonother
thanthedefendantmustnotbegivenwithoutleaveofthecourt.
4. Accordingly,badcharacterevidenceofanon-defendantcanonlybeadmittedundersection100if(1)
allpartiesagreetoitsadmission,or(2)itisimportantexplanatoryevidence
386
or(3)ithassubstantial
probativevalueinrelationtoamatterwhich(i)isamatterinissueintheproceedingsand(ii)isof
substantialimportanceinthecontextofthecaseasawhole
387
.
5. Thecredibilityofanallegationmadebyawitnessagainstthedefendantiscapableofbeingamatterin
issueintheproceedingswhichisofsubstantialimportanceinthecontextofthecaseasawhole,butthe
evidenceofWsbadcharactermustbeofsubstantialprobativevaluetotheresolutionofthatissueifitis
tobeadmitted.
388
6. Inordertoberelevanttocredibilityitisnotnecessarythatthebadcharacterevidencedemonstratesa
propensityforuntruthfulness.
389
7. Inassessingwhethertheevidencehassubstantialprobativevaluethejudgemustconsider,amongany
othersheconsidersrelevant,thefactorsidentifedinsection100(3).
8. Reasonsmustbegivenfortheruling.
390
Footnotes
386
Seesection100(2)withoutit...thejurywouldfnditimpossibleordiffcultproperlytounderstandotherevidenceinthecase,
anditsvalueforunderstandingthecaseasawholeissubstantial.
387
Goddard[2007]EWCACrim266;Garnham[2008]EWCACrim266
388
Weir(Yaxley-Lennon)[2006]1WLR1885;[2005]EWCACrim2866at73;Renda(Osbourne)[2006]1WLR2948;[2005]EWCA
Crim2826at59.NotetheconsiderationbytheCourtofAppeal(AikensLJ)inScott[2009]EWCACrim2457oftheissuewhether
falsecomplaintsofsexualmisconductconstitutedbadcharacterundersection98CJA2003whoseadmissionwasnotexcluded
bysection41YouthJusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999
389
SeeLawson[2007]1WLR3169;[2007]1CrAppR11;[2006]EWCACrim2572inthecontextofasimilarissuearisingbetween
defendants;Stephenson[2006]EWCACrim2325.SeealsoChapter11BadCharacteroftheDefendant(3)SubstantialProbative
ValueinRelationtoanImportantMatterinIssuebetweenDefendantsabove.
390
Section100(1)(b)
211
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Savewhereitisallegedthatthenon-defendantcommittedtheoffence
391
theissuewillusuallybeoneof
credibilityoftheevidencewhichimplicatesthedefendant.
Illustration V is the principal witness for the prosecution alleging unprovoked attack by the
defendant- V has convictions relevance to issues in the case
TheprincipalwitnessinthecaseagainstthedefendantwasV.YouheardthatVhas3previousconvictions
fordishonestycommittedwithinthelast12months.TwoyearsagoVwasconvictedofassaultoccasioning
actualbodilyharm.
ItistheprosecutioncasethatthedefendantmadeanunprovokedattackonV.Thedefendantscaseisthat
itwasVwhowastheaggressor.Heaimedapunchatthedefendantwhoactedinstinctivelyinselfdefence.
WhenassessingVsevidenceyouareentitledtotakeintoaccountthatVhasconvictionsfordishonestyand
hasinthepastactedaggressivelytowardsanother.Vsconvictionsdonot,ofcourse,meanthatVsevidence
isuntrueorthathewastheaggressoronthisoccasion.Itisforyoutoassesswhetherandtowhatextent
his previous behaviour may assist you in assessing Vs evidence and resolving the question whether the
defendantdidactormayhaveactedinselfdefence.
Sources
Archbold13-11/22;BlackstoneF14.1/14;EvidenceofBadCharacter,2ndEd.2009,ProfessorJohnSpencer
Footnotes
391
Astowhichseesection100(3)(d)
13: Bad CharaCter of person other than a defendant
212
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 14: hearsay eviDence
(1) General Introduction
1. Hearsayevidencemayhavebeenadmittedunderanyofthefollowingprovisions:
(i) Wherethepartiesagreetoitsadmission(section114(1)(c)CriminalJusticeAct2003)
(ii) Statementsbyawitnesswhoisdead,unft,abroad,cannotbefound,orinfear(sections116and
123CriminalJusticeAct2003);
(iii) Businessdocumentsanddocumentspreparedforcriminalinvestigationsorproceedings(sections
117and123CJA2003);
(iv) Statementsadmittedintheinterestsofjustice(section114(1)(d)CJA2003);
(v) Publicdocumentsandinformationadmissibleunderthepreservedcommonlaw(section118(1)1.
CJA2003);
(vi) Evidenceofreputationastocharacteradmissibletotheextentthecommonlawruleispreserved
(section118(1)2.CJA2003);
(vii)Evidenceoffamilyreputationtotheextentthecommonlawruleispreserved(section118(1)3.CJA
2003);
(viii)Statementsadmittedunderthepreservedcommonlawruleofresgestae(section118(1)4.CJA
2003);
(ix) Statementsofconfessionadmittedunderthepreservedcommonlawandstatutoryrules(section
118(1)5.CJA2003,section76PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984);
(x) Statementsofconfessionbyanaccusedadducedbyaco-accused(section76APACE1984);
(xi) Statementsmadebyagentsunderthepreservedcommonlawrule(section118(1)6.CJA2003);
(xii)Statementsinfurtheranceofacommonenterpriseunderthepreservedcommonlaw(section
118(1)7.CJA2003);
(xiii)Statementsbyanexpertwhicharedependentuponabodyofexpertiseunderthepreservedrule
ofcommonlaw(section118(1)8.CJA2003);
(xiv)Asmultiplehearsay(section121CJA2003);
(xv)Previousinconsistentstatementofawitness(section119(1)CJA2003);
(xiv)Previousinconsistentstatementofapersonwhosehearsaystatementhasbeenadmitted(section
119(2)CJA2003);
(xvii)Previousconsistentstatementofawitnessadmittedtorebutanallegationoffabrication(section
120(2)CJA2003);
213
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(xviii) Previousstatementsofawitnessmadeinadocumentwhichwasusedtorefreshthewitness
memoryorwasputtothewitnessincrossexamination(section120(3)andsection139CJA
2003);
(xix) Statementsofcomplaintbyacomplainantgivingevidence(section120(4)and(7)CJA2003);
(xx) Statementsbyawitnessidentifyingaperson,objectorplace(section120(4)and(5)CJA2003);
(xxi) Statementsmadebyawitnesswhohasnorecollectionofthethingsdescribed(section120(4)
and(6)CJA2003).
2. The2003Acthasreposedinthetrialjudgetheresponsibilityforassessingwhetherhearsayevidence
shouldbeadmitted.Theunderlyingpolicyisthatevidencefromanabsentwitnessshouldbereceivedifit
isprobativeandreliable.Iftheevidenceisadmitted,thatjudgementisultimatelyforthejury.Accordingly,
thereisaresponsibilityuponthetrialjudgetoprovidethejurywithappropriatedirections,setinthe
factualcontextofthecase,whichwillenablethemtomakeit.TheCourtofAppealhasonseveral
occasionsremindedjudgesoftheneedforcareincraftingdirectionsinordertoensurethathearsay
evidenceisconsideredfairly.
3. Hearsayevidencemayalsobegiventochallenge,orsupport,awitnesswhoispresentanddoesgive
evidence.Thefactorstobeconsideredbythejurywillthereforebedifferentfromcasetocasedepending
uponthepurposeforwhichtheevidenceisbeingused.
4. Theemphasistobegiventothereliabilityandeffectofhearsayevidencemay,byreasonoftheburden
andstandardofproof,dependuponwhetherthehearsayisrelieduponbytheprosecutionorthe
defenceorbetweendefendants.
14: hearsay evidenCe
214
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Witness Absent
5. Thehearsaystatementisgiveninevidenceinlieuoforalevidencefromthewitness.Onceadmittedthe
issueforthejuryiswhethertheycanrelyontheevidenceastruthfulandreliable.Someofthematters
whichtheymayneedtoconsidercanbeborrowedfromsection114(2)CJA2003(whetherhearsay
shouldbeadmittedbythejudgeintheinterestsofjustice):
(i) thecircumstancesinwhichthestatementwasmade;
(ii) howreliablethemakerofthestatementappearstobe;
(iii) howreliablethemakingofthestatement(writtenororal)appearstobe;
(iv) theamountofdiffcultyinvolvedinchallengingthestatementintheabsenceofcrossexamination
ofthemakerofthestatement;
Additionalmattersforthejurywillinclude:
(vi) whenthestatementwasoral,thereliabilityofthereporter;
(vii)theextenttowhichthehearsayissupportedbyorisconsistentwithotherevidence;
(viii)thescopeforerrorortheexistenceofareasontobeuntruthful.
Thus,thejurysattentionwillbedrawntotherisksof:
Insincerity
Faultyrecollection
Ambiguity
Misperception
6. Evidenceisadmissibletochallengethecredibilityoftheabsentwitness,includinghearsayevidenceofany
matterwhichcouldhavebeenputincrossexaminationandanypreviousinconsistentstatements.
392
If
suchevidenceisadduceditwillberelevanttothejurystask.
7. Whenitissought,undersection116CJA2003,toadducethestatementofapersonnotavailableasa
witness,itisnecessarythatthemakerofthestatement(therelevantperson
393
)shouldbeidentifed.
Whenitissoughttoadduceevidenceintheinterestsofjusticeundersection114thefactorstobe
consideredrequiresomeknowledgeofthesourceofthestatement.
394
8. Whilesection117(businessrecords)doesnotrequirethesourceofthestatementtobeidentifed,such
reliabilityasthehearsaystatementhasisderivedfromtheregularityandrepetitionofbusinesspractice.
Footnotes
392
Section124CJA2003
393
Section116(1)(b)
394
InRv.O[2007]EWCACrim738thetrialjudgerightlyrefusedleavetoadduceevidenceofananonymouscomplaintunder
section114(1)(d).Comparesection117(businessrecords)wheretheidentityofthemakerofthestatementisnotrequired.
21S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
9. Thesourceofevidenceadmittedasresgestaemaybeunknown.Thereliabilityoftheevidenceisderived
fromthespontaneityofthestatementandtheunlikelihoodofcalculation.Thereliabilityandaccuracyof
thewitnessreportingthestatementis,however,relevant.
10. Theimportanceofadequatedirectionsaboutthedangersinherentinhearsayevidenceisdemonstrated
bythejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealinHorncastleandOthers
395
andthelandmarkdecisionbythe
SupremeCourtonappeal
396
toupholdtheCourtofAppealanddepartfromthereasoningoftheECtHR
inAl-KhawajaandTaheryvUK
397
.TheSupremeCourtheldthattheadmissionofhearsayevidenceunder
section116CJA2003wasnotincompatiblewiththedefendantsArt6rights,evenwhereitwasthe
soleordecisiveevidence,sincetheActcontainedsafeguardsprotectingthedefendantsposition.Those
safeguardsconcerntheadmissionoftheevidence.Whetherthetrialisfairinsuchacasewilldepend,in
addition,upontheabilityofthejuryproperlytoassessthereliabilityandprobativevalueoftheevidence.
Itfollowsthatmaterialrelevanttothosequestions,includinganyidentifableweaknesses,shouldbe
placedadequatelyandfairlybeforethejury.
11. Ifthereasonthewitnessisabsentisfear,itwillnotbeappropriatetodisclosethatfacttothejuryunless
thedefencehasintroducedtheissuebeforethejury.
398
Directions - Witness Absent
InGrantvTheState
399
LordBinghamdescribedtherequirementsofadirectionwhenastatementisgivenin
evidenceinlieuofthewitnessasfollows:
Thetrialjudgemustgivethejuryacarefuldirectiononthecorrectapproachtohearsayevidence.The
importanceofsuchadirectionhasoftenbeenhighlighted:see,forexample,ScottvTheQueen,
400
...p1259;
HenriquesvTheQueen,
401
...p247.....Itisnecessarytoremindthejury,howeverobviousitmaybetothem,
thatsuchastatementhasnotbeenverifedonoathnortheauthortestedbycross-examination.Butthe
directionshouldnotstopthere:thejudgeshouldpointoutthepotentialriskofrelyingonastatementby
apersonwhomthejuryhavenotbeenabletoassessandwhohasnotbeentestedbycross-examination,
andshouldinvitethejurytoscrutinisetheevidencewithparticularcare.Itisproper,butnotperhapsvery
helpful,todirectthejurytogivethestatementsuchweightastheythinkft:presentedwithanapparently
plausiblestatement,undentedbycross-examination,byanauthorwhosereliabilityandhonestythejury
havenoextraneousreasontodoubt,thejurymaywellbeinclinedtogiveitgreaterweightthantheoral
evidencetheyhaveheard.Itisdesirabletodirectthejurytoconsiderthestatementinthecontextofall
theotherevidence,butagainthedirectionshouldnotstopthere.Iftherearediscrepanciesbetweenthe
statementandtheoralevidenceofotherwitnesses,thejudge(andnotonlydefencecounsel)shoulddirect
thejurysattentionspecifcallytothem.Itdoesnotofcoursefollowthattheomissionofsomeofthese
directionswillnecessarilyrenderatrialunfair,butbecausethejudgesdirectionsareavaluablesafeguardof
thedefendantsinterests,itmay.
Footnotes
395
[2009]EWCACrim994
396
[2010]2WLR47
397
[2009]49EHRR1
398
JenningsandMiles[1995]CrimLR810(CA),adecisionunderthe1988Act
399
[2007]1AC1;[2006]UKPC2at21
400
[1989]AC1242
401
[1991]1WLR242
21o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Wherethehearsayevidenceisthebasisfortheprosecutioncasetheimportanceofcautionshouldbe
emphasised.
402
Where,however,thestatementisrelieduponbythedefendant,orbyoneco-accusedagainst
anothercarewillneedtobetakenwiththetermsofthedirectionsoasadequatelytorefecttheburdenand
standardofproof.
Evidenceadmittedbyagreementundersection114(1)(c)CJA2003isnonethelesshearsayandthejuryshould
betoldhowtheyshouldapproachandhowtheymaymakeuseofit.
403
Thetermsofadirectionshouldbediscussedwiththeadvocatesnotonlywhentheevidenceiscontroversial
butalsowhenhearsayisadmittedbyagreement,sothatthejudgeandthepartiesareclearaboutthe
purposesforwhichitmaylegitimatelybeused.
(i) Section 116: Witness unavailable
Illustration main witness identifying defendant circumstances in which statement taken record
of identifcation procedure inconsistencies between description at the scene and in statement
disadvantage to defendant and the jury - need for caution
AttheoutsetofthetrialItoldyouthatyoucouldreceiveevidenceinvariousforms.Onewayisthereading
ofwitnessstatementswhenthereisnodisputeabouttheircontents.AlthoughtheevidenceofMrAhasbeen
readtoyouImustrepeatandemphasisethathisevidenceisverymuchindispute.Ihavepermittedthe
evidencetobereadbecauseitisproperlyreceivableinMrAsabsence,butthefactithasbeenadmitteddoes
notmeanthatyoumustacceptit.ThequestionwhetherMrAsevidenceistruthfulandaccurateisforyouto
decideandnotforme.Ineedtogiveyoudirectionsastohowyoushouldapproachyourtask.
First,considertheevidencegivenbyDCBinresponsetoquestionsaskedonbehalfofthedefendant.
YouwillrecallthatMrAsstatementwastakentwodaysaftertheincident.Hehadbeenspokentoatthe
scenebyDCBwhorecordedtheconversationinhisnotebook.MrAwasaskedtovisitthepolicestation
tomakehisstatement.TheundisputedevidenceisthatMrAwasinterviewedatthepolicestation.Ashis
accountemergedDCBwroteitdown.Thatwassometimesachievedbyquestionandanswertoclearup
ambiguity.Whenthestatementwascomplete,MrAwasinvitedtoreaditandtoconfrmitsaccuracy,orto
makeanyadditionsoralterationshewished.SomealterationsweremadeandMrAinitialledthem.Hethen
readthedeclarationoftruthandsignedthestatementwhichwascountersignedbyDCB.DCBtoldyouthat
heconsideredthestatementtobeanaccuraterecordoftheaccountgivenbythewitness.
InthatstatementMrAdescribedtheincident.HealsodescribedthepersonresponsibleforVsinjuriesand
theconditionsunderwhichhewasabletogivehisdescription.
Oneweekaftermakingthefrststatement,MrAreturnedtothepolicestation.Onthatdayanidentifcation
procedurewascarriedout.Heidentifedthedefendantasthemanwiththeknife.
Footnotes
402
Notethejudgesobligationundersection125tostopthecaseatanytimeafterthecloseoftheprosecutioncaseifsatisfedthat
thehearsayevidenceisunconvincing.
403
Brown[2008]EWCACrim369
217
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
While this is not the only evidence which tends to implicate the defendant it is, as the prosecution
acknowledges,themainevidenceidentifyingthedefendantasthemanwhowoundedV.
You have seen, in the course of the trial, several witnesses take the oath or affrm and give evidence in
person.Whenthatevidencehasbeendisputedithasbeentestedbyquestionsfromtheadvocateforthe
defendant.Asaresultofseeingandhearingthosewitnessesyouarebetterabletomakeanassessmentof
thevalueoftheevidence.YoudonothavethatadvantageinthecaseofMrA.ItisnotsuggestedthatMrA
hasbeenuntruthfulinanywaybutthedefencecaseisthatheismistaken.MrAcouldnotbeaskedabout
inconsistenciesbetweenhisdescription,atthescene,ofthemanwiththeknifeandthedescriptionhegave
inhisstatementtwodayslater.Youhavenot,therefore,asinthecaseofotherwitnesses,seenandheard
hisevidenceunderoathoraffrmationtestedincrossexamination.Youdonotknowhowhemighthave
respondedandyoumustnotspeculate.ThismeansthatyouhavenoexplanationfromMrAhowthose
inconsistenciescreptintohisaccount.Youshouldbearthesedisadvantagesfrmlyinmindwhenyouare
assessingMrAsevidence.
The inconsistencies identifed are.....It is submitted that they demonstrate, frst, Mr As capacity to make
anhonestmistake,and,secondly,theunreliabilityofhisidentifcationofthedefendant.Youwillneedto
examinetheseinconsistenciesandmakeadecisionwhethertheyaresignifcant.Iftheyare,thenyoumust
decidewhether,intheabsenceofanexplanationfromMrA,theyarecapableofunderminingtheaccuracy
ofhisidentifcationofthedefendant.
YoucannotconvictthedefendantoftheoffencechargedunlessyouaresurethatMrAsidentifcationofthe
defendantwasaccurate.Injudgingthatquestionyouareentitledtoconsidernotjustthecriticismsmadeof
MrAsevidencebutalltheevidenceinthecase.Theprosecutionreliesonthefollowingevidenceinsupport
ofMrAsidentifcationofthedefendant....
(ii) Section 117: Business records
Illustration business records Police National Computer system of recording issue whether
defendant using an alias anonymous hearsay report, recorded on PNC that the defendant had on
a previous occasion used the alias how the hearsay evidence is capable of supporting identifcation
warning as to possible mistake multiple hearsay
404

IneedtoexplaintherelevanceoftheprintoutfromthePoliceNationalComputer,andyourapproachtoit.
Theissueyoumustdecideiswhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatthedefendantwasthemandriving
thecar.YouhaveheardthatthepersonarrestedatthescenebyPCJonesgavehisnameasJohnSmith.He
thenfedthesceneandthedefendantwasnottraceduntil14dayslater.HesaidhewasRoyGreen,had
neverheardofJohnSmithandwasnotthemandrivingthecaratthetimeoftheaccident.Hedisputesthe
identifcationmadebyPCJones.
Footnotes
404
AfterWellingtonvDPP[2007]171JP497;[2007]EWHC1061(Admin)relevanttoproofofidentityoftheperpetratorofsimilar
actsallegedinothercounts.
218
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Inmakingyourjudgementoftheidentifcationevidence,aboutwhichIhaveremindedyou,youareentitled
totakeaccountofthefactthatenteredonthePNCwasamanwiththisdefendantsdateofbirth,livingat
thedefendantsaddress,usingthenameJohnSmith.
Theevidenceisthat,asamatterofroutine,policeoffcers,oncontactwiththepublic,submitinformation
whichmaybeofinteresttootheroffcerswhosejobitistoconsiderthatinformationandtomakerelevant
entries into the computer. It is no longer possible to identify who may have provided the information or
the person who made the entry but the prosecution suggests that the entry could not have been made
unlessthisdefendanthadusedthenameJohnSmithtoapoliceoffcerotherthanPCJonesonsomeearlier
occasion.Neitherthereasonforthereportnortheoccasionfortheconversationwhichledtothereportneed
concernyoubecausetheyareofnorelevance.
Itwassubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantthatalthoughthemachinemaybeinfallible,allitdoesisstore
informationprovidedbyahumanagency,andhumansmakemistakes.Theaddressorthedateofbirth
couldhavebeenmisheardormisread.Thereweretwopeoplewhocouldhavemadeamistake,frstthe
offcersubmittingthereportand,second,theoffcermakingtheentryontothecomputer.
Imustexplainthattheevidenceisdoublehearsay,frstfromthepersonwhomadethereportandsecond
from the person who transferred the information to the computer. You therefore need to be particularly
carefulabouteachstageintheprocessofrecording.Neitherofthesewitnessesisavailabletogiveevidence.
Youhavenot,asaresult,hadtheopportunityofassessingthereliabilityoftheinformationrecordedby
hearingevidenceunderoath,testedbyquestionsaskedincrossexamination.
Youare,nevertheless,entitledtolookatthisevidencebutitisforyoutodecidewhetheritisreliable.In
makingthatjudgement,youwouldbeentitledtoaskyourselves:whatarethechancesthatbothPCJones
and some other offcer unknown to us should have made separate and unrelated mistakes about the
manusingthenameJohnSmith;andwhatistheprospectthatthepersonwhosejobitwastoenterthe
informationmadeaninaccuraterecord?Ifyouaresurethattherealisticpossibilityofmistakeeitherinthe
reportoftheincidentorintherecordingofitonthecomputerhasbeenexcluded,youmayconcludethat
thePNCrecordprovidespowerfulevidencethatthedefendanthadbeencallinghimselfJohnSmith.If,after
exercisingduecaution,youconcludethatthePNCevidenceisreliableyouareentitledtotreatthatevidence
assupportfortheidentifcationofthedefendantmadebyPCJones.
Consider the competing submissions made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. The questions
(1)whatconclusionsshouldbedrawnabouttheaccuracyofthePNCrecordand(2)whatsupport,ifany,
therecordgivestoPCJonesidentifcationareforyoutodecide.Rememberthatyoucannotconvictthe
defendantunlessyouaresurethatPCJonesidentifcationofthedefendantwasaccurate.
21
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(iii) Section 114(1)(d): Interests of justice - prosecution
Illustration prosecution adduce hearsay in the interests of justice registration number of getaway
car recorded by one witness on the instructions of another maker of the statement unknown and
absent - [Note:Thejudgehas,aftercarefulconsiderationoftherelevantfactorsinsection114(2),admitted
theevidenceundersection114(1)(d)althoughnotsatisfedthatallreasonablypracticablestepshavebeen
takenundersection116(2)(d)tofndthemissingperson.]
Animportantstrandoftheprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantscarwasusedbytherobberstoescape
fromthescene.
ThedefendantscarisaredFordMondeo.Theregistrationnumberis....
MrAistheownerofanewsagentsshopnextdoortothebuildingsocietywheretherobberyoccurred.He
toldyouthatamanranintohisshopandsaid,Writethisdown,quick.Theyvedonearobbery.Hethen
dictatedtoMrAaregistrationnumberwhichMrAwrotedown.Youseeacopyinyourbundleofexhibits.
That,ofcourse,istheregistrationnumberofthedefendantsMondeo.ThemanwhogaveMrAthenumber
lefttheshopandhasneversincebeentraced.Youareinvitedbytheprosecutiontoinferthattheunknown
man,havingwitnessedthegetaway,ranintothenewsagentsshopwiththeregistrationnumberofthe
getawaycarinhisheadandsuppliedthatnumbertoMrA.MrAtoldyouthathewrotethenumberdown
immediatelyandconfrmeditwiththemanbeforeheleft.
Thewordsspokenbytheunknownmanarecritical.Theymakethelinkbetweentherobberyandthecar.
Theunknownmanisnotavailabletogiveevidenceandthefrstquestionyouneedtoresolveiswhetheryou
canbesureoftheinferencethathehadjustwitnessedthegetaway.Thedefendantdoesnotchallengethis.
Heacceptsthattheonlyrationalexplanationforhisbehaviouristheimmediateneedforthegetawaycarto
beidentifedandrecorded.
Thedefendantdeniesthathewasoneoftherobbersanddeniesthathiscarwasanywherenearthesceneof
therobberyonthatday.Hiscaseisthattheunknownmanmusthavemadeamistake,eitherinobserving
theregistrationnumberorinrecallingittoMrA.Thisisanassertionwhichcannotbetestedbyquestionsto
theunknownmanunderoathoraffrmation.Asyouhaveseeninthecourseofthetrial,theusualcourse,
whenevidenceisdisputed,isforwitnessestoattendcourtandfacequestions.Youarebetterable,bythat
means,tomakeajudgementwhethertheirevidenceistruthfulandaccurate.Youknownothingaboutthe
unknownmanexceptforMrAsencounterwithhim.Youcannotthereforemakeajudgementaboutthe
reliabilityofhisobservationandrecollectionexceptfromtheverylimitedinformationavailabletoyou.You
mustbearthatdisadvantagewellinmindwhenconsideringwhatweightyoucanplaceonthisevidence.
However,youarenotrequiredtolookatitinisolation.Theeventsatthenewsagentsshoparejustpartofthe
circumstancesonwhichtheprosecutionrelies.Youareentitledtoconsideranyotherevidencewhichtendsto
linkthedefendantwiththerobbery.Thosecircumstances,ifyouacceptthem,arecapableofsupportingthe
accuracyoftheidentifcationofthecarmadebytheunknownman.Itisforyoudecidewhethertheydoor
not.
Intheend,thequestionyoumustresolveiswhetherallthecircumstances,asyoufndthemtobe,leadyou
tothesureconclusionthatthedefendantwasoneoftherobbers.
220
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(iv) Section 114(1)(d): Interests of justice - defence
Illustration hearsay admitted on the application of the defence in the interests of justice confession
by another possible fabrication
ThedefendantischargedwithcausingVgrievousbodilyharmwithintent.
Thedefendantscaseisalibi.HesaysthatVsidentifcationofhimismistaken.Thedefendanthasabrother
calledA,knownalsotoV.Vacceptsthatthebrothersarefaciallysimilarbuthastoldyouheissureitwasthe
defendantandnotAwhoattackedhim.Followingthedefendantsarrestandinterviewundercaution,the
policemadeitknownthattheywantedtointerviewA,butAhasgonetogroundandhiswhereaboutsare
unknown.
YouhaveheardevidencefromMissBwhotoldyouthatatthetimeoftheattackonVshewasthedefendants
girlfriend.ShesaysthatintheearlyhoursonthedayfollowingtheattackAcametoherhome.Hesaidhe
hadbeeninafghtandwantedhertowashhisclothes.Thissheagreedtodo.Whensheaskedhimwho
hehadbeenfghtingwith,AtoldheritwasV.MissBisalsothedefendantsalibiwitness.Bothsheandthe
defendantsaythatatthetimetheattacktookplacetheyweredrinkingtogetherinapublichouseseveral
milesaway.
YouhaveheardtheevidenceoftheconversationbetweenAandMissBbecauseitisrelevanttothequestion
whetherVsidentifcationofthedefendantisaccurateormistaken.IfMissBtoldyouthetruthitwouldbe
strongevidencethatVmistakenlyidentifedthedefendant.WhatpurposecouldAservebypretendingto
MissBthathehadbeeninafghtwithVwhenhehadnot?
However, the prosecution case is that Miss Bs account has been concocted in collaboration with the
defendantandAinordertoprovidethedefendantwithafalsedefencetothecharge.
Themattersonwhichtheprosecutionreliesarethese:(1)MissBmadenomentionoftheconversationwhen
interviewedasthedefendantsalibiwitness.Shementionedthisconversationtothedefendantssolicitorfor
thefrsttimeonthemorningsheappearedtogiveevidence;(2)MissBhasamotivetoassistthedefendant.
Theirrelationship,whichbeganwellbeforetheattackonV,continues.Shehasbeenvisitingthedefendant
whilehehasbeeninprisononremandeveryfortnight;(3)MissBsevidenceconcerningAsclothingand
whatshedidwithitwascontradictoryandunsatisfactory;(4)TheclaimofthedefendantandMissBnotto
knowofthecurrentwhereaboutsofAisnottobebelieved.Thedefendanthasmadecallsfromprisontoa
mobiletelephoneregisteredtoA;(5)Vexplainedhisabilitytodistinguishbetweenthebrothersbydetailed
referencetotheirfacialappearanceandbuild.
Itisarguedonbehalfofthedefendantthat.....
You must consider Miss Bs evidence with care. The prosecution case depends upon the accuracy of Vs
identifcationofthedefendant.IfyouconcludethatMissBsevidenceconcerningherconversationwithAis
trueormaybetruethenyoucouldnotalsofndthatyouweresureVhadcorrectlyidentifedhisattacker.
If,however,youaresurethatMissBwaslyingtoyou,herevidenceoftheconversationdoesnothingto
undermineVsevidenceofidentifcation.IfyouweresurethatMissBsevidencecanonlybeexplainedby
dishonestcollaborationwiththedefendantorhisbrotherorbothofthem,youcan,ifyouthinkitright,treat
thatfndingasadditionalsupportfortheprosecutioncase.But,indecidingwhetheritdoesprovidethat
support,youshouldbearinmindthatfalseevidencemaybegiveninamisguidedattempttomakeagood
defencelookbetter.
221
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Witness Present
Whencomposingdirectionsabouttheeffectofpreviousoutofcourtstatementsreceivedinevidenceitis
necessarytohaveinmindthequestionwhetherthepreviousstatementisrelieduponbytheprosecution
orthedefence.Iftheeffectofthepreviousstatementwouldbetoassisttheprosecutionthequestion,
dependingonthecentralityoftheissue,maybewhetherthejuryissureitisanaccurateaccount.Iftheeffect
wouldbetoassistadefendantthequestionmaybewhetherthepreviousstatementisormaybeanaccurate
account.
405
Theoutofcourtstatementofawitnessgivingevidencemaybeadmittedinthefollowingcircumstances.
(i) Previous Inconsistent Statement
Section119CJA2003provides:
Inconsistentstatements
(1) Ifincriminalproceedingsapersongivesoralevidenceand
(a)headmitsmakingapreviousinconsistentstatement,or
(b)apreviousinconsistentstatementmadebyhimisprovedbyvirtueofsection3,4or5
oftheCriminalProcedureAct1865(c.18),
thestatementisadmissibleasevidenceofanymatterstatedofwhichoralevidencebyhimwould
beadmissible.
(2) Ifincriminalproceedingsevidenceofaninconsistentstatementbyanypersonisgiven
undersection124(2)(c),thestatementisadmissibleasevidenceofanymatterstatedinit
ofwhichoralevidencebythatpersonwouldbeadmissible.
Thus,thestatementwillhavebeenputtothewitnesseitherbecausetheoppositepartyischallengingthe
consistencyofthewitnessorbecausethewitnessishostiletothepartycallinghim.
406
Directionstothejurywillconcernthereliabilityofthewitnesspresentandpreviousaccount,andthejurys
abilitytomakeajudgementwhichaccount,ifeither,theyaccept.
Footnotes
405
Billingham[2009]EWCACrim19at68
406
Section119(1)CJA2003.Notethatsection119isnotagateway.Thecommonlawrulesapplicabletohostilewitnessesremain.If
thewitness,havingbeentreatedashostile,acceptsthetruthofthestatement,section119isnotinplay(Gibbons[2008]EWCA
Crim1574).Crossexaminationdirectedtoadiscreteinconsistentpassageinawitnessstatementdoesnottherebymakethe
wholestatementadmissible(Pashmfouroush[2006]EWCACrim2330at25).Section119(1)rendersadmissibletheinconsistent
222
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration statement by prosecution witness inconsistent with oral evidence
ItemergedthattherewereinconsistenciesbetweenAsoralevidenceandthestatementhemadetwodays
aftertheincidentyouareconsidering.Insomerespects,Aacceptedthathismemoryatthetimewasfresher
andthereforemorelikelytobeaccuratethanitisnow.Inotherinstances,heinsistedthathisstatementwas
wrongandthathispresentrecollectionwasright.
Asstatementwasmadealmost12monthsago.Youmaythinkitobviousthatthepassageoftimewillaffect
theaccuracyofmemory.Memoryisfallibleandyoumightnotexpecteverydetailtobethesamefromone
accounttothenext.Wherethereisaninconsistencyitisnecessarytodecidefrstwhetheritissignifcant.
Ifitissignifcant,youwillnextneedtoconsiderwhetherthereisanacceptableexplanationforit.Ifthereis
anacceptableexplanationforthechange,youmayconcludethattheunderlyingreliabilityoftheaccount
is unaffected. But what if the inconsistency is fundamental to the issue you are considering? You will be
lesswillingtooverlookit.TowhatextentsuchinconsistenciesinAsaccountinfuenceyourjudgmentofhis
reliabilityisforyoutodecide.
ThefactthatonanimportantsubjectAhasbeeninconsistent,andtheinconsistencyisnotsatisfactorily
explained,mayleadyoutoconcludethatyoucannotrelyonAsoralevidenceonthatsubject.However,
theaccountgiveninAsstatementalsoformspartoftheevidenceinthecase.Youarenotboundtoaccept
eitheraccountbutifinanyrespectyouconcludethathisstatementisaccurateandhisoralevidenceisnot,
thenyoumayactuponthestatementinpreferencetohisoralevidence.
You may think that the change between As statement and his oral evidence is fundamental to your
considerationofcount2.IfyouconsiderthatAsstatementis,ormayhavebeen,theaccurateaccountand
thathisoralevidenceis,ormayhavebeen,mistaken,itwouldfollowthatAsevidencecannotsupportthe
prosecutionscaseuponcount2.
Illustration inconsistent statement of hostile witness for the prosecution
YouwillrecallthatAwasanunwillingwitness.Whenhefrstenteredthewitnessboxhewouldsaynothing.
Eventuallyheagreedthathehadmadeastatement,whichheidentifed.Ipermittedcounseltoaskhim
questionsaboutthatstatement.InitAsaidhehadseentheincidentwhichtookplaceamatterofyards
fromwherehewasstandingoutsidethepublichouse.HesawthedefendantruntowardsVanddelivera
haymakerofapunchtotheleftsideofVsface.Vwenttotheground,strikinghisheadonthepavement
withasickeningthud,andthereheremainedmotionless.Atoldyouinevidencethathehadseennosuch
thing.Heonlymadethestatementbecausehethoughtthatiswhatthepolicewantedtohear.Iwillremind
youinmoredetailofhisevidenceinamoment.
Aisawitnesswhohaschangedsides.Hehasgivenoneaccountinhisstatementandadifferentaccount
in the witness box. One approach would be to treat his evidence as completely unreliable and therefore
worthless.IfthatisyourconclusionAsevidencecouldbeofnoassistancetoyou.Itis,however,opento
you to reach a contrary view. As statement is evidence on which you are entitled to act if, after careful
consideration,youthinkitrighttodoso.
YouwillrecalltheevidenceofbystandersthatAwenttotheassistanceofV.Hecalledtheemergencyservices
onhismobilephone.Assoonasthepoliceandparamedicsarrivedhetoldthemhehadseenitallandgave,
atthescene,theaccountwhichhelaterrepeatedinwriting.IfyourejectAspresentexplanationforthat
statementandyouaresurethat,despitehispresentdenial,Awastellingthetruthwhenhemadeit,then
youmayhaveregardtothestatementinpreferencetohisoralevidence.
223
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(ii) Statement to Refresh Memory
Section139CJA2003provides:
Use of documents to refresh memory
(1) Apersongivingoralevidenceincriminalproceedingsaboutanymattermay,atanystage
inthecourseofdoingso,refreshhismemoryofitfromadocumentmadeorverifedby
himatanearliertimeif
(a)hestatesinhisoralevidencethatthedocumentrecordshisrecollectionofthematter
atthatearliertime,and
(b)hisrecollectionofthematterislikelytohavebeensignifcantlybetteratthattimethan
itisatthetimeofhisoralevidence.
407
(2) Where
(a)apersongivingoralevidenceincriminalproceedingsaboutanymatterhaspreviously
given an oral account, of which a sound recording was made, and he states in that
evidencethattheaccountrepresentedhisrecollectionofthematteratthattime,
(b)hisrecollectionofthematterislikelytohavebeensignifcantlybetteratthetimeof
thepreviousaccountthanitisatthetimeofhisoralevidence,and
(c)atranscripthasbeenmadeofthesoundrecording,
hemay,atanystageinthecourseofgivinghisevidence,refreshhismemoryofthematter
fromthattranscript.
Section120(3)setstheconditionsunderwhichthestatementmaybetreatedasevidenceofthematters
stated.Itisnotagatewaythroughwhichthestatementisadmitted.Itremainsforthetrialjudgetodecide
whetheritshouldbereceivedinevidence:
(3)Astatementmadebythewitnessinadocument
(a)whichisusedbyhimtorefreshhismemorywhilegivingevidence,
(b)onwhichheiscross-examined,and
(c)whichasaconsequenceisreceivedinevidenceintheproceedings,
is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by him would be
admissible.
Dependinguponthenatureofthecrossexamination,directionstothejurywillconcerntheaccuracyor
reliabilityofthewitnessaccount.Itisnottheuseofthestatementtorefreshmemorywhichtriggersthe
admissibilityofthemattersstated(becausethewitnessisconfrmingthetruthofthestatement)buttheuse
ofthestatementincrossexamination.BeforetheAct,statementswhichhadbeenthesubjectofclosetextual
examinationbythedefencewerecommonlyadmittedinevidencesothatthejurycouldfollowthearguments
beingpresentedonbothsides,butnotasevidenceofthemattersstatedunlessthosematterswereadoptedby
thewitness.Section120(3)nowmakesthestatementadmissibleforthatpurposeifitsconditionsaresatisfed.
Footnotes
407
InMangena[2009]AllER(D)137Oct,onthetrialofthedefendantforinvestmentfraud,allprosecutionwitnesseswere
permittedtorefreshtheirmemoriesundersection139,eachhavingconfrmedthatanearlierstatementhadbeenmadeandthat
hismemorywouldhavebeenbetteratthetime.TheCourtofAppealdismissedanappealmountedonthegroundthatatfrst
eachwitnessshouldhavebeenrequiredtoattempttogiveevidencewithouttheaidofthestatement.
224
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration statement used to refresh memory cross examination - admissibility
Awaspermittedtorefreshhismemoryfromastatementmadeamonthaftertheincident.12monthshave
sincepassed.WhencounselforthedefendantaskedquestionsaboutitAdeclinedtoadoptitinfullandA
wastakenthroughtherelevantpartsofthestatementinsomedetail.AsaresultIhavedecidedthatyoucan
onlymakesenseofAsresponsestocounselsquestionsifyouhavethestatementbeforeyou.
408
I will remind you of As evidence and the differences between the statement and his oral evidence in a
moment.
Inthesecircumstancesyouareentitledtohaveregardtothecontentsofthestatementfortwopurposes:frst,
toassesstheeffectofAsoralevidenceand,second,youmaytreatthestatementaspartofhisevidence.It
followsthataftercarefulconsiderationyoumaypreferanypartoftheaccountgiveninthestatementorany
partofAspresentrecollectiongivenorallyinevidence,asyouthinkright.
IwillexplainwhenwearriveattherelevantpartsofAsaccounthowthatdirectionmayhaveanimpacton
yourdeliberations.
(iii) Statement to Rebut an Accusation of Fabrication
Section120(1)and(2)ofthe2003Actprovide:
Otherpreviousstatementsofwitnesses
(1) This section applies where a person (the witness) is called to give evidence in criminal
proceedings.
(2) Ifapreviousstatementbythewitnessisadmittedasevidencetorebutasuggestionthat
his oral evidence has been fabricated, that statement is admissible as evidence of any
matterstatedofwhichoralevidencebythewitnesswouldbeadmissible.
NoprovisionismadeelsewhereintheActtoprovideforthecircumstancesinwhichawitnessstatements
maybeintroducedtorebutfabrication.Incommonwithotherprovisionsinsections119and120,section
120(2)doesnotprovideagatewaytoadmissibility.Itstatesonlythatifastatementhasbeenadmittedforthe
purposeitwillbeevidenceofmattersstated.
409
Footnotes
408
Notesection122CJA2003:
Documents produced as exhibits
(1)Thissectionappliesifonatrialbeforeajudgeandjuryforanoffence
(a)astatementmadeinadocumentisadmittedinevidenceundersection119or120,and
(b)thedocumentoracopyofitisproducedasanexhibit.
(2)Theexhibitmustnotaccompanythejurywhentheyretiretoconsidertheirverdictunless
(a)thecourtconsidersitappropriate,or
(b)allthepartiestotheproceedingsagreethatitshouldaccompanythejury.
409
Trewin[2008]EWCACrim484at18
22S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
InAthwal
410
boththetrialjudgeandcounselproceededonthecorrectassumptionthattheconsistent
statementsofaprosecutionwitnesswereadmissibleonlyiftheyrebuttedrecentfabricationunderthe
commonlawandthemistakenassumptionthat,ifadmissible,theywereevidenceonlyofconsistencyandnot
ofthemattersstated.AfterareviewofthehearsayprovisionsoftheActtheCourtofAppealconcludedthatall
statementsmadetorebutfabricationweregovernedbysections114(1)and120(2).Oftheneedtosatisfythe
commonlawtest,Scott-BakerLJsaid:
58. We add this observation. It is noticeable that section 120(2) refers to fabrication but without the
temporal qualifcation recent. Again, this replicates the recommendation of the Law Commission. The
omission of the qualifcation may be a welcome simplifcation. However, it is clear that the Commission
did not recommend a wholesale departure from the previous approach. Indeed, it concluded that the
circumstancesinwhichthisminorexceptioncanbeusedarebestleftalone(Report,paragraph10.45).On
theotherhand,wedonotconsiderthatthecommonlawlabelofrecentfabricationistobeconfnedwithin
atemporalstraitjacket.Thiscase,andothersbeforeit,demonstratethatrecentisanelasticdescription,
thepurposeofwhichistoassistintheidentifcationofcircumstancesinwhichthetraditionalruleagainst
self-corroboration,sometimesreferredtoastheruleagainstnarrative,shouldnotextendtotheexclusion
of a previous consistent statement where there is a rational and potentially cogent basis for its use as a
toolfordecidingwherethetruthlies.Themerefactthatthewitnesshassaidsubstantiallythesamething
onapreviousoccasionwillnotgenerallybeasuffcientbasistoadducethepreviousstatementwhenthe
truthfulnessofhisevidenceisputinissue.Theremustbesomethingmoreforexample,theabsenceon
theearlieroccasionofafactor,saypersonaldislike,whichisbeingadvancedasapossibleexplanationfor
thefalsityofhisevidenceincourt.However,whencircumstanceshavechangedinsuchaway,itmaynot
matterthattheychangedlastweek,lastmonthorlastyear,providedthatthereisaqualitativedifference
incircumstances,butsubstantialsimilaritybetweenthetwoaccounts.Thereisnomargininthelengthof
time.Thetouchstoneiswhethertheevidencemayfairlyassistthejuryinascertainingwherethetruthlies.
Itisforthetrialjudgetopreservethebalanceoffairnessandtoensurethatunjustifedexcursionsintoself-
corroborationarenotpermitted,whetherthewitnesswascalledbytheprosecutionorthedefence.
Directionstothejurywillconcernthequestionwhetherthestatementrebutsthesuggestionthatthe
evidenceisfabricated.
Footnotes
410
[2009]EWCACrim789
22o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration accusation of recent fabrication earlier anonymous statement admitted to rebut recent
fabrication statement relevant to rebut accusation of improper motive and as to the truth of the
matters stated
ItwassuggestedtoAincrossexaminationthathisevidenceisatissueofliesdesignedtosecureasubstantial
fnancialrewardofferedbyXBankplcthreeweeksaftertherobbery.Thatimpliesthatbeforethereward
wasmadepublicAhadnoevidenceimplicatingthedefendanttogive.Atoldyouthatoneweekafterthe
robberyhetelephonedtheCrimewatchprogrammeandgaveinformationabouttherobbery.Hesaidhe
recognisedthemanintheCCTVflmasthedefendant.Furthermore,thedefendanthadaskedhimtominda
holdall.Insidewasahandgun.Thedefendantcollectedit2dayslater.Awasnotpreparedtogivehisname
toCrimewatchbutsaidhewasgivingtheinformationbecausehewasdisgustedatthetreatmentmetedout
tothesecurityguard.IthassincebeenconfrmedthatamandidindeedtelephoneCrimewatchandgave
preciselythisinformation.Becausetheanonymouscallercouldnotbetracedandthedefendantcouldnot
befoundtheappealwasrepeated,thistimewitharewardoffered.FollowingthepublicationoftherewardA
informedthepoliceofthedefendantslikelywhereaboutsandthedefendantwasarrested.
YouhaveheardabouttheanonymouscallbecauseitisrelevanttothequestionwhetherAsevidenceis
trueorfalse.ProvidedthatyouaresurethatitwasAwhomadethecallyoumay,ifyouthinkitright,treat
thatevidenceasaneffectiverebuttalbyAoftheaccusationmadeagainsthimoffabricationforhisown
purposes.Furthermore,aslongasyouaresureAwascaller,theinformationhegave,whichisconsistent
withhisaccounttoyou,isevidenceinthecase.Youmaytakeitintoconsiderationwhendecidingwhether
thefactthatAeventuallycameforwardtoclaimtherewardandgiveevidencedoesanythingtoundermine
thetruthofwhathesays.
(iv) Statement Admissible as Evidence of Person, Object or Place
Section120(4)and(5)provide:
(4) Apreviousstatementbythewitnessisadmissibleasevidenceofanymatterstatedofwhich
oralevidencebyhimwouldbeadmissible,if
(a)anyofthefollowingthreeconditionsissatisfed,and
(b) while giving evidence the witness indicates that to the best of his belief he made the
statement,andthattothebestofhisbeliefitstatesthetruth.
(5)Thefrstconditionisthatthestatementidentifesordescribesaperson,objectorplace.
Directionstothejurywillconcernthereliabilityofthewitnessearliestrecollectionoftheperson,objector
place.
227
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration statement by prosecution witness concerning the description of a person
Thisincidentoccurredtwoyearsago.AtthetimeoftheinitialpoliceinvestigationAwasinterviewedand
gave a statement in which he described the facial features and build of, and the clothing worn by, the
attacker.Awasinterviewedbyanartistexpertinproducingpictorialimpressionsoffeaturesdescribedto
him.Animpressionwasproduced,acopyofwhichisnowinyourbundle.Aconfrmedthelikeness.Itis
submittedbytheprosecutionthatboththedescriptionandtheimpressionbearacloseresemblancetothis
defendant.
ItwouldbeunreasonabletoexpectAtorecallthedetailsofhisdescriptiontwoyearsaftertheevent.Atrial
isnotamemorytestforwitnesses.YouareentitledtoandshouldjudgetheaccuracyandreliabilityofAs
recollectionatthetimewhenhewasfrstaskedtobringthesematterstomind.Thatiswhythedescription
containedinAsstatementwasreadashisevidence.
(v) Statement of Matters Now Forgotten
Sections120(4)and(6)provide:
(4) Apreviousstatementbythewitnessisadmissibleasevidenceofanymatterstatedofwhich
(5)....
(6)Thesecondconditionisthatthestatementwasmadebythewitnesswhenthemattersstated
werefreshinhismemorybuthedoesnotrememberthem,andcannotreasonablybeexpected
torememberthem,wellenoughtogiveoralevidenceofthemintheproceedings.
Thus,wherethewitnessgivesoralevidencethathemadethestatementandhisstatementistruetothebest
ofhisbelief,thestatementisadmissibleinproofofthemattersstatedif(1)thestatementwasmadewhen
matterswerefreshinthewitnessmemory,(2)thewitnesscannolongerrememberthem,and(3)thewitness
cannotreasonablybeexpectedtorememberthemwellenoughtogiveevidenceaboutthem.
Directionstothejurywillconcernthereliabilityofthewitnessearliestrecollectionofthesubjectmatterofhis
evidence.
228
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration statement of matters now forgotten accounts manager examined many documents
in course of investigation results recorded since forgotten statement admitted in evidence
TwoyearsagoAworkedintheaccountsdepartmentofXLtdasaninvoiceprocessingmanager.During
thecourseofthepoliceinvestigationshewasaskedtoexamineaseriesofpurchaseorders,jobsheetsand
invoices, the purpose being to ascertain whether the companys internal records indicated that the work
invoicedwasactuallyperformed.Shepreparedatableonanexcelspreadsheetinwhichtheresultsofher
researchesarelaidout.
Ahasmovedon,haschangedheremploymentandnolongerhasanyworthwhilerecollectionoftheexercise.
ItwouldbeunreasonabletoexpectAnowtogiveevidencefrommemoryaboutthesematters,whichiswhy
sheworkedthroughthespreadsheetwiththeassistanceofherwitnessstatement.Itwouldbeartifcialtosay
thatthiswasaprocessofmemoryrefreshing.Areliedalmostentirelyontheworkshedidatthetime.That
shouldnotconcernyou.Asstatementdescribingwhatshedidandexplainingtheresultsoftheexerciseis
evidenceinthecasewhichyoucanconsidertogetherwithheroralevidence.
DuringcrossexaminationonbehalfofthedefendantAwasaskedwhethersomeoftheoriginaldocuments
couldbearaninterpretationdifferentfromthatreachedbyAatthetimeoftheexercise.Athoughtnotbut
shewasunablefrommemoryalwaystojustifyherconclusion.Youwillneedtobearthatlimitationwellin
mindwhenconsideringthequestionwhethersomeoralloftheseinvoicesweresubmittedforworkwhich
hadneverbeendone.
(vi) Statement of Complaint
Section120(4),(7)and(8)provide:
(4)Apreviousstatementbythewitnessisadmissibleasevidenceofanymatterstatedofwhich
(5)....
(6)....
(7)Thethirdconditionisthat
(a)thewitnessclaimstobeapersonagainstwhomanoffencehasbeencommitted,
(b)theoffenceisonetowhichtheproceedingsrelate,
(c)thestatementconsistsofacomplaintmadebythewitness(whethertoapersoninauthority
ornot)aboutconductwhichwould,ifproved,constitutetheoffenceorpartoftheoffence,
(d)[thecomplaintwasmadeassoonascouldreasonablybeexpectedaftertheallegedconduct],
411
Footnotes
411
Bracketedwordsremovedbysection112CoronersandJusticeAct2009asfrom1February2010(CoronersandJusticeAct
(CommencementNo3andTransitionalProvisions)Order2010(SI2010/No.145)
22
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(e)thecomplaintwasnotmadeasaresultofathreatorapromise,and
(f) before the statement is adduced the witness gives oral evidence in connection with its
subjectmatter.
(8)Forthepurposesofsubsection(7)thefactthatthecomplaintwaselicited(forexample,bya
leadingquestion)isirrelevantunlessathreatorapromisewasinvolved.
Thestatementofcomplaintneednothavebeenmadeinwriting.Itfollowsthatiftheprosecutionisin
possessionofawitnessstatementmadebyathirdparty(e.g.relative,friendorpoliceoffcer)totheeffectthat
acomplaintwasmadebythecomplainant,evidenceofthetermsofthatcomplaintfromthepersontowhom
thecomplaintwasmadeisalsoadmissibleeitherinsupportofthecomplainantsevidenceortodemonstrate
inconsistency.
Theremovaloftherequirementthatthecomplaintshouldhavebeenmadeassoonascouldreasonablybe
expectedaftertheallegedconductmayhavetheeffectofincreasingthescopeforargumentbetweenthe
prosecutionandthedefendantastowhetherthecomplaint,whenmade,supportsorisinconsistentwith
itstruth.Sincethecomplaintneednothavebeenmadewithinareasonabletime,latercomplaintsarealso
admissible,subjecttosection78fairness.
Thejudgewillneedtotakecareinhisdirectionstothejury.Theywillconcernmattersrelevanttothe
reliabilityofthewitnesscomplaintderivedfromitscontext,circumstancesandconsistency,andthe
explanationforanydelayinmakingit.
Thejurymustberemindedthatacomplaintcannotprovideindependentsupportbecausethesourceremains
thewitness.
412
Illustration complaint of sexual offence delay reasons given whether complaint made as soon
as could reasonably be expected complaint and oral evidence from the same source
Itisseldomthecasethatthefrsttimeavictimcomplainsiswhenheorshemakesastatementtothepolice.
Thecomplaintmaybemadeimmediatelytoamemberofthefamilyorafriendoraneighbour,ortothe
personwhofrstcomestothevictimsassistance.Sometimesacomplaintisnotmadeforyears.Therewasa
delayhereandthedefendantsuggeststhatisareasonfordoubtingthatAnnistellingthetruth.
Howpeoplereacttocrimemaydependuponthenatureofthecrime,theageandpersonalityofthevictim
andtheenvironmentinwhichthevictimisliving.Experiencetellsusthatcircumstancesarealwaysdifferent
andthatthereisnoclassicresponsetosexualcrime.
Annwaslivingathomewithhermotherandthedefendant,herstepfather.Shewasaged11.Herevidenceis
thatthefrsttimeshementionedasexualassaultwastoherschoolfriend,Justine,threemonthslater.Justine
reportedAnnscomplainttotheirformmistressatschool,MissJacques.MissJacquesspoketoAnnandthe
policewerecalled.Duringhervideointerview,whichyouhaveseen,Annwasaskedwhyshehad
Footnotes
412
A(A)[2007]EWCACrim1779at16statementforthetruthofthematterstatednotwithstandingthewitnessdisownsit.
230
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
notcomplainedimmediately.Shesaidthedefendanthadtoldherthatitwasourlittlesecretandthatshe
shouldnottellanyonebecausewewouldbothbeintroublewithyourmother.Doyouacceptthatthese
wordswerespokenbythedefendant?Ifso,doesitseemtoyouthekindofresponsewhichan11yearold
girlinAnnssituationmightmakeifplacedunderthiskindofpressurebyapersonhavingparentalauthority
overher?WasthereanimpliedthreatthatAnnwouldbeidentifedwiththeguiltofthedefendant?Your
answertothesequestionsmayaffectyourviewwhetherthereisasatisfactoryexplanationforthedelayin
Annscomplaintandherevidencegenerally.
IwillremindyouoftheevidenceofAnnsinitialcomplaintinmoredetailinamomentbutfrstIshould
explainhowyoumayuseit.Thecomplaintisanintegralpartofthenarrative.Youwouldwanttoknow
howthesemattersfrstcametolight.Thecircumstancesinwhichthecomplaintwasmade,andtheterms
inwhichitwasexpressed,mayassistyoutoaconclusionnotjustwhetherthecomplaintwasconsistentbut
alsowhetheritwastrue.TheevidenceofJustineandMissJacquesprovidesindependentsupportforthefact
thatacomplaintwasmadeandthetermsinwhichitwasmade,butrememberthatoneachoccasionthe
sourceofthecomplaintwasAnnherself.TheycannotconfrmthatwhatAnnwastellingthemwastrue.In
theendyouaredecidingwhetherAnnhasgivenatruthfulaccountofthedefendantsbehaviourtowards
her.
Illustration accusation against complainant of an ulterior motive for his complaint evidence of
contemporaneous statement of complaint admitted to rebut recent fabrication statement admissible
for matters stated application of section 120(2) and (4) complaint and oral evidence from the same
source
ItwassuggestedtoVthathechosetomaketheseallegationsagainstthedefendantonlyafterhebecame
awareoftheinquiryintothechildrenshomeandinordertosupportaclaimforcompensation.Itisimplicit
inthissuggestionthatVhasfabricatedanaccountofphysicalabuseagainstthedefendantforhisown
advantage.
YouhaveheardthatwhilestillresidentattheschoolVstayedwithhismotherforaweeksholiday.Hemade
acomplaintabouthistreatmentandasocialworkerwascalled.Vgaveadescriptionwhichwasrecordedby
thesocialworker.ForreasonswhichremainobscurenothingthencameofVscomplaint.Itwasnotuntillast
yearthatthepolicecontactedVwhenhemadeawitnessstatement.
YoumayusetheevidenceofVscomplainttohismotherandthesocialworker,nowconfrmedbytherecord
madeatthetime,forthreepurposes:frst,itmayassistyoutoaconclusionwhethertheaccusationmade
againstVhasbeenunderminedbytheevidencethathemadeacomplaintshortlyaftertheeventsyouare
considering;second,itmayhelpyoutojudgewhetherVhasbeenconsistentinhiscomplaintandonthat
accountwhetherhisevidenceislikelytobereliable;third,youmaytreatthecomplaintitselfaspartofVs
evidenceastowhathappenedtohim.
Thesearemattersforyourconsiderationandjudgement.Whethertheyassistyouandtowhatextentare
bothquestionsforyoutodecide.Remember,however,thatineachcasethesourceofthecomplaintwasV.
ThisisnotconfrmationofthetruthofVsevidencefromanotherwitness.
231
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Statements in Furtherance of a Common Enterprise
Thecommonlawruleconcerningtheadmissionofstatementsmadeinfurtheranceofacommonenterprise
arepreservedbysection118(1)7.ofthe2003Act.
Actsdoneandstatementsutteredinfurtheranceofacommoncriminalenterpriseareadmissibletoprovethe
participationofadefendantnotthenpresent.
413
Beforeadmittingtheevidencethejudgemustbesatisfedthatthereisevidencethatthedefendant
participatedintheenterprise.Thatevidencemayincludetheactorstatementinquestionprovidedthereis
someotherevidence(e.g.circumstantialevidence)thatthedefendantparticipated.
414
Ifitturnsoutthatthereisinfactnoreasonableevidenceofparticipationbythedefendantotherthantheact
orstatementofajointparticipant,thecaseshouldbewithdrawnfromthejury.
Directionstothejuryshouldexplainthatthepotencyoftheevidencederivesfromitscharacterasthe
enterpriseinaction.Thejuryshouldnot,therefore,relysolelyuponthehearsayevidence.
415
Illustration statements in furtherance of a common enterprise to import controlled drugs notebook
recording transactions conversations between conspirators
As I have explained, the prosecution case against the defendants is circumstantial. It comprises in the
main(1)evidenceofsurveillanceofthedefendantsandtheirmeetings,(2)journeysmade,theprosecution
asserts,tocollectanddeliverclassAdrugsand(3)telephonecommunicationbetweenthedefendantsat
criticalstagesoftheeventsobserved.Allfourmenwerearrested,theprosecutionsuggestred-handed,atthe
warehousewherethefnaldeliveryofdrugswasstored.Theyeachdenytheyhadanyconnectionwiththe
drugs.D1andD2saytheywerewaitingforadeliveryofcigarettes.D3andD4saytheywereaskedbyD2to
gotothewarehousetodiscussabusinessproposition.
TherearetwopiecesofevidencewhichfalloutsidethecategoriesIhavementioned.Ineedtogiveyou
specifcdirectionsaboutthem.
ThefrstconcernsthenotebookfoundatthehomeofD1.Thatnotebook,theprosecutionasserts,isan
account book of the conspiracy in operation. You have seen entries of fgures against names which the
prosecutionsaysarearecordofpurchasesmadeandpricespaidbyD3andD4forClassAdrugsduringthe
periodoftheallegedconspiracy.
Footnotes
413
Donat82CrAppR179;GrayandLiggins[1995]2CrAppR100;DevonportandPirano[1996]1CrAppR221;JonesandBarham
[1997]2CrAppR119,[1996]EWCACrim58;SmartandBeard[2002]EWCACrim772
414
Itisamatterforthetrialjudgewhetheranyactordeclarationisadmissibletoprovetheparticipationofanother.Inparticular,
thejudgemustbesatisfedthattheactordeclaration(i)wasmadebyaconspirator,(ii)thatitwasreasonablyopentothe
interpretationthatitwasmadeinthefurtheranceoftheallegedagreementand(iii)thatthereissomefurtherevidencebeyond
thedocumentorutteranceitselftoprovethattheotherpartywasapartytotheagreement.StatementofthelawinArchbold
(2002)33-60c(2009ed.33-68)approvedbytheCourtinSmartandBeardat8.SeealsoJonesandBarhamatpage127
415
JonesandBarhamatpages132-134
232
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
ThesecondconcernsthecovertrecordingofaconversationbetweenD1andD2atameetingheldinD2s
caratthedockside.DuringthecourseofthatconversationbothD1andD2arediscussingwhetherthetime
isnowrighttomakeacalltoD3andD4toenterthedock.Dependinguponyourview,D1issayingthat
thetrawlerisabouttodock.Thatconversation,theprosecutionsays,wastheconspiracyinoperation.It
explainswhatappeartobeacollectionbyD3andD4madeshortlyaftertheholdallswereunloadedfrom
thetrawlerintothewarehouse.
ThenotebookisevidenceinthecaseofD1andtheconversationisevidenceinthecasesofD1andD2.Ineed
toexplaintherelevanceofthenotebooktothecasesofD2,D3andD4andtherelevanceoftherecorded
conversationtothecasesofD3andD4.
Actsdoneandstatementsmadeinfurtheranceofacommoncriminalenterprisearereceivableinevidence
notjustagainstthoseimmediatelyresponsibleforthem.Theyarealsoreceivableasevidenceinthecases
ofanyotherparticipantsintheenterprise.Youareentitledtohaveregardtothoseactsandstatements,
together with the other evidence in the case, when deciding whether D3 and D4 joined a conspiracy to
importclassAdrugs.
YouneedtotakecarewiththisevidenceandIwillexplainwhy.
First,thenotebook:Theprosecutioncaseisthatifyoulinktheentriesinthenotebookwiththeotherevidence
ofmovementsbyD3andD4andtheircommunicationswithD1andD2theydemonstratethatD1was
keepingarunningrecordforhimselfandD2bothoftheimportations,andthecontributionsmadebyD3
andD4totheircost.
Theaccountbook,asithasbeencalled,wasnotpreparedbyD2,D3orD4.ItwasarecordkeptbyD1over
whichtheyhadnocontrol.Theysaytheycannotassistastothepurposeofthebook.Alltheycansayis
thatitcannothaverecordeddrugtransactionswiththembecausenodrugtransactiontookplace.D1has
givenevidencethathekepttheaccounttorecordsalesofcigarettestopersonsotherthanD3andD4.Ifthat
explanationistrueormaybetruethenthebookcannotberegardedasevidenceconcerningD2,D3and
D4.
Second, the dockside conversation: D3 and D4 were not present during the recorded conversation. They
couldnotthereforechallengewhatwasbeingsaid.Theysaytheyknownothingaboutanyplantohand
overdrugstothemandnosuchhandoverinfactoccurred.
Youshouldguardagainstthetemptationtolookattheaccountbookortheconversationorbothinisolation
fromtheothercircumstantialevidence.IndecidingwhetherD2,D3andD4weremembersoftheconspiracy
tosupplydrugsyoushouldhaveregardtoalltheevidence.But,youcouldnotconvicteitherD3orD4ifthe
solebasisforyourdecisionwastheaccountbookortheconversationorboth.YoucanonlyconvictD3orD4
ifallthecircumstances,includingtheaccountbookandtheconversation,makeyousureofguilt.
233
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Res Gestae
416

Illustration res gestae statement made by an unidentifed bystander care to be taken that the
words spoken were spontaneous and not motivated by malice limited signifcance of the hearsay
statement
Vgaveevidencethatassoonasheheardtheglassinthewindscreenofhiscarsmashingheopenedhis
front door. A group of three youths was running away down the road. A man standing on the opposite
pavement shouted over to him It was the white beanie hat. V went inside and telephoned the police.
Whenhereturnedtothedoorstepaboutaminutelaterthemanoppositehadgoneandhehasneverbeen
identifedortraced.
Vrandowntheroadandfoundagroupthreeyouthshangingaboutoutsidetheofflicenceattheendofthe
street.Oneofthem,thedefendant,waswearingawhitebeaniehat.Vaskedthedefendantwhetheranyone
elsehadpassedbyandhesaidNo.Aminuteorsolaterthepolicearrived.Vrelatedwhathadhappened
andthedefendantwasarrested.
YouareentitledtohaveregardtothislimitedevidenceofidentifcationbytheunknownmanbutIneedto
explainhowyoushouldapproachit.
Aspontaneousandunrehearsedreactionbyabystandertosuddenandunexpectedeventscanbevaluable
evidenceofthetruthofhisobservation.Youneedfrsttoconsiderwhetherthestatementhemadewasindeed
spontaneous.Youmustbesurethatthestatementmadewasnotmotivatedbymalice.Weknownothing
aboutthebystander.However,givenitsproximityintimetothesoundofsmashingglass,youmaythinkthat
thebystandermusthavebeenreferringtoanincidentwhichhehadjustobserved.Thereis,therefore,reason
tothinkthatthebystanderwasidentifyingapersonhebelievedhadjustsmashedVswindscreen,someone
wearingawhitebeaniehat.Itisnotsuggestedthathewasabletoordididentifyanyparticularindividual.
Itisthereforediffculttoseewhatscopetheremighthavebeenforthebystandertogivedeliberatelyincorrect
information.Itisforyoutodecidewhetheryoucanbesurethisisthecorrectconclusion.Ifnot,youmustput
thisevidencetoonesideandignoreit.
Butwhatifyoudoconcludethatthisremarkwasspontaneousandgenuine?Thisdoesnot,ofitself,amount
toevidenceofidentifcationofthedefendant.Itissimplythedescriptionofanitemofclothingwhichhappens
tohavebeenwornbythedefendantandneitherofhistwocompanions.Whatgivestheevidencesignifcance
arethefactsthatthedefendantwasmomentslaterseenashortdistanceawaywearingsuchahat,andthat
hedeniedthatanyoneelsehadrecentlypassedby.Youareinvitedtoinferthattheonlycandidateforthe
youthinthewhitebeaniehatwasthedefendant.Providedyoucanbesurethereisnoroomformistakethis
isalegitimateapproachtotheevidence.
Youmustconsiderwhetheryoucanbesureofthisinference.Youarenot,ofcourse,expectedtoviewthis
evidenceinisolation.Ishallsummariseinamomenttheotherevidenceuponwhichtheprosecutionrelies.
Footnotes
416
SeeAndrews[1987]AC281;[1987]84CrAppR382perLordAckner:Ofcourse,havingruledthestatementadmissiblethe
judgemust....makeitcleartothejurythatitisforthemtodecidewhatwassaidandtobesurethatthewitnesseswerenot
mistakeninwhattheybelievedhadbeensaidtothem.Further,theymustbesatisfedthatthedeclarantdidnotconcoctor
distorttohisadvantageorthedisadvantageoftheaccusedthestatementrelieduponandwherethereismaterialtoraisethe
issue,thathewasnotactivatedbyanymaliceorill-will.Furtherwheretherearespecialfeaturesthatbearonthepossibilityof
mistakethenthejuriesattentionmustbeinvitedthosematters.
234
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(6) Multiple Hearsay
Section121ofthe2003Actprovides:
Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay
(1) Ahearsaystatementisnotadmissibletoprovethefactthatanearlierhearsaystatement
wasmadeunless
(a)eitherofthestatementsisadmissibleundersection117,119or120,
(b)allpartiestotheproceedingssoagree,or
(c)thecourtissatisfedthatthevalueoftheevidenceinquestion,takingintoaccount
howreliablethestatementsappeartobe,issohighthattheinterestsofjusticerequirethe
laterstatementtobeadmissibleforthatpurpose.
(2) Inthissectionhearsaystatementmeansastatement,notmadeinoralevidence,thatis
reliedonasevidenceofamatterstatedinit.
InMusone
417
thedeceasedprisonermadeadyingdeclarationidentifyinghisassailant.Thedeclarationwas
heardbytwofellowprisoners,oneofwhom(B)wascalledtogivethehearsayevidenceundersection116(1)
and(2)CJA2003(witnessdead).Thesecond(P)completedaquestionnaireduringtheinvestigationwhich
followedimmediately.InitP:(1)gaveacircumstantialaccountoftheincidentand(2)relatedthewordsused
bythedeceased,identifyinghisattacker.Prefusedtogiveevidence.Theprosecutionappliedsuccessfullyto
adduce(1)undersection114(1)(d),Pscircumstantialaccountand(2)undersection121(1)(c),Psmultiple
hearsayevidenceaccountofthedyingdeclaration.TheCourtofAppealheldthattheevidencewasproperly
admitted.Inapplyingsection121(1)(c)tothedyingdeclarationthetrialjudgehadrightlyappliedtheinterests
ofjusticefactorssetoutatsection114(2).
418
InXhabri
419
thedefendantwaschargedwithoffencesinvolvingthekidnapping,rapeandforcedprostitution
ofa17yearoldLatviangirl.Hisdefencewasconsent.DuringherallegeddetentionVmanagedtopass
messagestofamilyandfriends.Twofriendsrelayedthecomplaintstoapoliceoffcer.Thecomplaintsqualifed
asadmissiblehearsayundersection120(4)and(7)CJA2003.Intheabsenceofthetwofriendsthepolice
offcersevidencewasadmissibleasmultiplehearsayundersection121(1)(c).
InMaherv.DPP
420
awitnesssawthedefendantcollidewithVsunattendedvehicleinacarpark.Hewrote
downthenumberofthedefendantscaronapieceofpaperwhichheleftonVswindscreen.Vfoundthe
paperandreadthenumberoverthetelephonetothepolice.ThenumberwasenteredinthePoliceIncident
Logbyaclerk.Attrial,intheabsenceofthewrittennoteandofthewitnessthePoliceIncidentLogwas
admitted.TheLogcouldnotbeadmittedundersection117becausetheinformationwasnotrelayedfromthe
witnesstoVinthecourseofatradeorbusiness(seesection117(2)(c)).However,theevidencewasadmissible
asmultiplehearsayundersections114(1)(c)and(2)andsection121(1)(c)CJA2003.
Itfollowsthatbothinconsideringtheadmissibilityoftheevidenceandincomposingdirectionstothejurythe
judgeisrequiredtoanalysethechainofhearsay.
421
Thejurywillneedtoreceivedirectionsabouteachlinkin
thechain,sincetheultimatedecisionastothereliabilityoftheevidencemustbemadebythejury.
Footnotes
417
[2007]EWCACrim1237
418
At15-30
419
420
[2006]EWHC1271(Admin)
421
Walker[2007]EWCACrim1698
23S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration hearsay - witness 1 writes down number of car, and hands it to witness 2 saying it was
the getaway car witness 2 telephones the police, reads the note and relays witness 1s message to
witness 3 witness 3 makes entry in police incident book
You will recall the sequence of events which led to an entry being made in the Police Incident Log. The
telephoneoperatoratthepolicestationtoldyouthathereceivedacallfromamemberofthepublic.The
callersaidthatarobberyhadtakenplacethatdayatthelocalpetrolstation.Hesaidhehadbeenhanded
anotebysomeoneelseatthescenewhosaidhehadwrittendownthenumberofthegetawaycarasitwas
leaving.Thecallerreaditouttotheoperator.Theoperatorhimselfmadeanoteandusedthatnotetomake
anentryinthePoliceIncidentLogwhichincludedtheregistrationnumberreadtohimoverthephone.None
ofthewitnessesisnowavailable.Atranscriptofrecordingofthetelephoneconversationhasbeenagreed
andtheincidentloghasbeenproducedbythestationinspectorwhohasexplaineditscontents.
The prosecution relies on this evidence to prove that the car which was involved in the robbery was the
defendantscar.
Youwillneedtoassessthereliabilityofthisevidenceandtodothatyouwillneedtoexamineeachstagein
therelayofinformation.Letuscallthepersonwhowrotethenumberdown,A,andthepersonwhoreceived
thenote,B.Therearefourstages:
(1) TheobservationofthecarbyAandthewritingdownofthenumber;
(2) TheconversationbetweenAandBandthehandingofthenotetoB;
(3) TheconversationbetweenBandtheoperatorand,inparticular,thereadingofthenotebyBto
theoperator;
(4) TherecordingoftheconversationandthenumberintheIncidentLog.
What evidence is there that A wrote down the number of the getaway car? The evidence comes from B
whoinformedtheoperatorthatiswhatAtoldhim.Thisissecondhandorhearsayevidence,andasthe
informationhaspassedthroughtwoabsentwitnessesitisdoublehearsay.Beforeyoucouldrelyonityou
wouldneedtobesatisfedthatAaccuratelyrelatedtoBwhathehaddone,andthatBaccuratelyrelatedto
theoperatorwhathehadbeentoldbyA.Intheendthevalueoftheevidencedependsupontheaccuracyof
Asrecordingofthenumber.
HadAandBbeenavailabletogiveevidencetheiraccountscouldhavebeentestedbyquestionsaskedon
behalf of the defendant. You do not have that advantage and you must bear in mind the possibility of
undetectableerror.Ontheotherhand,youarenotrequiredtoconsiderthehearsayevidenceinisolation.
Thereisotherevidencewhichtheprosecutionsubmitslinksthedefendanttotherobbery.Ifyouacceptthat
submissionthenyouareentitledtobeartheotherevidenceinmindwhenmakingyourassessmentwhether
therereallyisroomforcoincidentalmistake.
Sources
Defnition of Hearsay
23o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Unavailable Witnesses
Business etc Documents
Interests of Justice
Archbold11-3c;11-23;BlackstoneF16.20/21
Public Documents and information
Expert Evidence
Archbold11-47/48;BlackstoneF.16.19,44
Res Gestae, Contemporaneous Feelings and Intention
Common Law and Statutory Confessions and Admissions
Archbold11-84,15-350/412,15-354/412;BlackstoneF16.38/39
Confession of Co-Accused
Archbold11-49;15-353a,386,354;BlackstoneF17.19
Statements in Furtherance of a Common Enterprise
Previous Inconsistent Statements and Hostile Witnesses
Previous Consistent Statements
Archbold11-33/34;11-36/40;BlackstoneF6.20/26
Multiple Hearsay
Archbold11-41;BlackstoneF16-54
SeealsoHearsayProvisionsintheCriminalJusticeAct2003ProfessorDavidOrmerod,JSBTrainingWebsite;
HearsayEvidenceinCriminalProceedings2008,ProfessorJohnSpencer
237
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 15: the DeFenDants stateMents
anD behaviour
(1) Confessions
Introduction
Aconfession,forthepurposesofPACE1984,isanystatementwhollyorpartlyadversetothepersonwho
madeit,whethermadetoapersoninauthorityornotandwhethermadeinwordsornot.
422
Statementswhichcontainmixedadmissionsandexculpatoryassertionsarefrequentlyadducedaspartofthe
prosecutioncase.Theclassicstatementoftheeffectofsuchstatements,sinceapprovedbytheHouseofLords
inSharp
423
,wasmadebyLordLaneCJinDuncan
424
:
Whereamixedstatementisunderconsiderationbythejuryinacasewherethedefendanthasnotgiven
evidence,itseemstousthatthesimplestand,therefore,themethodmostlikelytoproduceajustresult,isfor
thejurytobetoldthatthewholestatement,boththeincriminatingpartsandtheexcusesorexplanations,
mustbeconsideredbythemindecidingwherethetruthlies.Itis,tosaytheleast,nothelpfultotryto
explain to the jury that the exculpatory parts of the statement are something less than evidence of the
factstheystate.Equally,whereappropriate,asitusuallywillbe,thejudgemay,andshould,pointoutthat
theincriminatingpartsarelikelytobetrue(otherwisewhysaythem?),whereastheexcusesdonothave
thesameweight.Noristhereanyreasonwhy,againwhereappropriate,thejudgeshouldnotcommentin
relationtotheexculpatoryremarksupontheelectionoftheaccusednottogiveevidence.
WhileDuncanconcernedadefendantwhohadnotgivenevidence,theprinciplethatthewholestatementis
admissibleasevidenceofthetruthofthemattersstatedapplieswhetherthedefendantgivesevidenceornot.
InHamand
425
theCourtofAppealheldthattheexculpatorypartsofamixedstatementwerecapableof
discharginganevidentialburdenonthedefendant(e.g.toraisetheissueofselfdefenceorprovocation).
Thegroundsforexclusionofaconfessionare:
(1) Undersection76PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,thattheconfessionwasobtainedby
oppression,orinconsequenceofanythingsaidordonewhichwaslikely,inthecircumstances
existingatthetime,torenderunreliableanyconfessionwhichmightbemadebyhimin
consequencethereof;and
(2) Undersection78PACE1984,thathavingregardtoallthecircumstances,includingthe
circumstancesinwhichtheevidencewasobtained(e.g.inbreachofCodeC),theadmissionofthe
evidencewouldhavesuchanadverseeffectonthefairnessoftheproceedingsthatthecourtought
nottoadmitit.
Footnotes
422
Section82(1)PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984
423
[1988]1WLR7
424
[1981]73CrAppR359atpage365
425
[1985]82CrAppR65
1S: the defendants stateMents and Behaviour
238
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Whenthejudgehasheardandrejectedanapplicationtoexcludetheconfessionundereithersection76or
section78,thedefendantisnotprecludedfromraisingbeforethejurymattersrelevanttotheirconsideration
ofthereliabilityandtruthoftheconfession.
426
Directions
InMushtaq
427
thedefendantunsuccessfullysoughttoexcludehisstatementsofadmissiononthegroundof
oppression.Beforethejury,questionswereaskedofpolicewitnesseswhoseobjectwastoelicitevidenceof
oppression,which,asinthevoirdire,wasdenied.Thetrialjudgedirectedthejurythateveniftheythought
theconfessionwasormayhavebeenobtainedbyoppressiontheycouldactupontheconfessioniftheywere
sureitwastrue.TheHouseofLordsheldthistobeamisdirection.
Juriesshouldbedirectedthatiftheythinktheconfessionwasormayhavebeenobtainedby
oppression,theyshouldputitasideandplacenorelianceuponit.
428
WherebreachesofCodeCcapableofaffectingthereliabilityofadmissionsareexploredbeforethe
jury,thejudgeshouldexplaintheirrelevancesincetheymayaffecttheweightwhichthejurycan
attachtotheevidence.
429
Wheretheconfessionofadefendantwhoismentallyhandicappedwasnotmadeinthepresenceof
anindependentpersonbutisneverthelessadmittedinevidence,andthecaseagainstthedefendant
dependswhollyorsubstantiallyontheevidenceofconfession,thecourtshallwarnthejurythat
[forthesereasons]thereisaspecialneedforcautionbeforeconvictingtheaccusedinrelianceonthe
confession.
430
Anyevidencewhichisreasonablycapableofunderminingthereliabilityofaconfessionshouldbe
pointedouttothejury.
ForthepermitteduseofaninadmissibleconfessionseeArchbold15-352andBlackstone17-53.Thequestion
maylegitimatelybeposedwhether,ifinthecourseofaconfessionobtainedbyoppressiontheaccusedreveals
informationonlytheculpritcouldhaveknown,hisguiltyknowledgeisadmissiblewhiletheconfessionisnot.
Footnotes
426
Murray[1951]KB391atpage393,[1950]34CrAppR203atpage208;ChanWeiKeung[1967]51CrAppR257atpage265;
Mustaq[2005]1WLR1513,[2005]2CrAppR485atpage500,[2005]UKHL25at37
427
[2005]1WLR1513,[2005]2CrAppR485,[2005]UKHL25
428
ThepolicyoftheActisnotjusttoexcludeunreliableconfessionsbutalsotoexcludeconfessionsobtainedbyimproperpressure
andinbreachoftherightagainstself-incrimination,Mushtaq45-47,perLordRodger.Theconvictionwasupheldbecause
therewasinfactbeforethejurynoevidenceofoppressionorotherimproperconduct.
429
AsinthecaseofCodeD:Quinn[1995]1CrAppR480;Graham[1994]CrimLR212;Forbes[2001]1AC473(HL)
430
Section77PACE1984
23
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration confession to a drinking acquaintance, the making of which is denied
TheprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantadmittedthisoffencetoAwhiletheyweredrinkingtogether.The
circumstanceswerethese....
Thedefendantdeniesthatthisconversationtookplace.HeclaimsthatAhasfabricatedhisevidencefor
someunknownpurposeofhisown.
YoushouldconsiderAsevidencewithcare.
IfyouaresurethatthedefendantmadetheseadmissionstoA,thentheyrepresentimportantevidencein
supportoftheprosecutioncase.IfyouareleftindoubtwhethertheadmissionsweremadetoAthenthey
canbeofnoassistancetotheprosecutionandyoumustignorethem.
Illustration confession in interview under caution, the truth of which is denied
Thedefendantacceptsthatduringhisinterviewundercautionwiththepoliceheadmittedthisoffence.You
haveatranscriptandcanseeforyourselvesthedetailofhisconfessionandthemannerinwhichitemerged.
However,thedefendanthasgivenevidencethattheadmissionshemadewereuntrue.Hemadethem,he
says,becausehewastoldbythepolicebeforethetaperecorderwasswitchedonthatunlesshemadethese
admissionstheywouldarresthiswifetoo.
Youshouldfrstconsidertheevidenceoftheinterviewingoffcersandthedefendant.Ifyouconcludethatthe
threatallegedwasmadeormayhavebeenmadetothedefendantitwouldhavebeenquiteimproper.You
couldnotrelyuponaconfessionwhosereliabilityisputindoubtbysuchathreat.Inthateventyoumustput
theinterviewtoonesideandplacenorelianceuponit.
Ithasbeensubmittedonthedefendantsbehalfthatevenifyouaresurethatnothreatwasmade,itdoes
notnecessarilyfollowthattheadmissionsaretrue.Thedefendantmayhavehadagenuinefearthathiswife
mightbeimplicatedbythepolice;hemighthavedecidedtomakeafalseconfessioninordertoavoidthe
riskthathiswifewouldbearrested.Youshouldconsiderthisargument.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendants
state of mind may have caused him to make admissions which are unreliable then you should place no
relianceuponthem.Thereisasamatteroffactnoevidencetosupportthedefenceargument.Nevertheless,
youcanonlyactuponaconfessionwhichyouaresureistrue.Indecidingwhetherthedefendantmadea
trueconfession,youareentitledtohaveregardtotheotherevidenceinthecase.Theprosecutionsubmits
thatthetruthofseveralofthedetailedadmissionsmadebythedefendanthassincebeenconfrmed.
240
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration mixed admissions and exculpatory statements in interview defendant does not give
evidence
Iwillexplaintoyouinmoredetailinamomentthepossibleconsequencesofthedefendantsdecisionnotto
giveevidence.ThedefendantadmittedininterviewdeliveringblowstoVsfaceandhead.Heclaimedthat
hedidsobecausehebelievedhewasabouttobeassaultedbyV.Whatthenisthestatusoftheaccounthe
gaveininterview?
Thewholecontentsofthedefendantsinterviewareadmissibleasevidence,boththeadmissionsandthe
explanation.YoumayconcludethatthedefendantwasunlikelytoconfesstousingviolencetowardsVunless
thatconfessionwastrue.Astotheexplanationorexcuseforusingsuchviolence,youwillappreciatethat
thedefendantwasnotgivingevidenceunderoath,hasdecidednottosupportitinoralevidence,andhas
nothadhisaccounttestedincross-examination.Ontheotherhand,Vhasgivenevidenceandhisaccount
hasbeenexaminedindetailonbehalfofthedefendant.Thevaluetobeplacedonanypartoftheevidence,
includingthedefendantsinterview,isamatterforyoutodecide.
Illustration breaches of Code C caution not repeated failure to show note of conversation to the
defendant as soon as practicable assessing signifcance
Youhaveheardthatthedefendantwasdriveninapolicecarsome30milestoXpolicestation.Thedefendant
hadatthecommencementofthejourneybeencautionedthatitwashisrighttoremainsilentbutifwhen
interviewedhefailedtomentionsomethingonwhichhelaterreliedincourt,itcouldharmhisdefence.
DCBdrovethecar.DCAsatwiththedefendantintherearpassengerseat.DCAtoldyouthatduringthe
course of the journey the defendant made some unsolicited remarks to him about the offence which he
askedthedefendanttoclarify.Therefollowed,accordingtoDCA,signifcantadmissions.DCAsaidthaton
arrivalatthepolicestationhewenttotheCIDoffcewhilehiscolleagueDCBpresentedthedefendanttothe
custodyoffcer.Therehewrotedownasummaryoftheconversationwhichincludedsomedirectquotations
ofthedefendantswords.Thedefendantwasnotshownthatrecorduntilhehadbeeninterviewedfor2
hours.Whenshowntherecordherefusedtocomment.
Whenpoliceoffcerstakesuspectedpersonsintocustodytheyareboundbyacomprehensivesetofrules
designed to protect the interests of the suspect. DC A was admittedly in breach of those rules in two
importantrespects.First,hefailedtoremindthedefendantwhenhestartedtospeakinthepolicecarthat
hewasnotobligedtosayanything.Second,hefailedassoonaswaspracticable,toprovidethedefendant
withtheopportunitytoreadtherecord,commentuponitsaccuracyandsignit.
Thesefailuresare,dependinguponyourview,capableofaffectingthereliabilityoftheadmissionsrecorded
byDCA.Indecidingwhetheryoucanrelyupontherecord,youareentitledtobearinmindthedefendants
admissionthattherewasindeedaconversationbetweenhimselfandtheoffcerduringwhich,thedefendant
toldyou,itwashisintentiontoelicitinformationfromtheoffcer.Heknewthathewasundernoobligation
tosayanythingifhedidnotwishto.Ifyouacceptthedefendantsevidencethathewasawareofhisrightto
remainsilentthenhesufferednodisadvantagefromDCAsfailuretoremindhimofthatveryfact.
241
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Secondly,thecruxofthedisputebetweenthedefendantandDCAiswhether,duringtheirconversation,the
defendantmadetheadmissionsattributedtohim.Therewasanadmitteddelayofsome4hoursbetween
themakingoftherecordandthepresentationofittothedefendantininterview.DCAtoldyouthatthis
wasanoversight.Hehadtakenamealbreakbelievingthatthedefendantwasnottobeinterviewedbefore
thearrivalofthedutysolicitor.Asamatteroffactthatwasnotso.Thedefendanthadatfrstdeclinedthe
servicesofasolicitorandhisinterviewcommencedwithintwohoursofhisarrivalatthepolicestation.DC
Asaidhewasthencalledouttoanothermatterandtherecorddidnotcomebacktohisminduntilafterhe
haddealtwithit.Thepurposeoftherulethatthedefendantshouldbegiventheopportunitytocomment
onandsigntherecordistoprotectthedefendantfrominaccuraciesinit.Thesooneranydisputeaboutthe
accuracyoftherecordisrevealedthebetterableyouaretomakeanassessmentwhetheritisreliable.Here,
thedefendantchose,whenshowntherecord,tomakenocommentatall.If,butonlyif,youthinkitrightto
doso,youareentitledtoconcludethatthedefendantintheeventsufferednodisadvantage.Hewasgivena
lateropportunitytoexaminetherecordbutchosenottorevealwhetherhedisputeditornot.Thedefendant
hastoldyouthathissilencedidnotindicateagreement.Hethoughthewasbeingsetup.Thatisthemoment
whenhedecidedheneededasolicitorand,fromthatmomenton,herefusedtoanswerquestions.
ItfollowsthatthecentralissueforyoutoresolveiswhetherDCAsrecordoftheseadmissionsisaccurateor
not.Whendecidingthatissueyoushouldbearfrmlyinmindthefactthattheproceduredesignedtoprotect
thedefendantsinterestwasnotproperlyfollowed.Nevertheless,ifhavingtakenaccountoftheirregularity,
youaresurethatDCAhastoldthetruthandthathiswrittennoteisanaccuraterecordofthedefendants
wordsofadmission,youareentitledtohaveregardtoitwhendecidingwhetherthedefendantisguiltyof
theoffencecharged.
Sources
Archbold15-354/408,15-14/16;BlackstoneF17.1/65
242
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Lies
Introduction
The problem stated
1. Iftheprosecutionsucceedsindemonstrating(byprooforadmission)thatthedefendanthasliedabouta
signifcantmatterthequestionisfrequentlyposedtothejury,Whyshouldthedefendanthaveliedifhe
isinnocent?
2. Thisconundrumisattheheartofallliesdirectionsandtherearetwocentralquestionswhicharise:
Ifthedefendantadmitsthelie,ishisexplanationfortellingthelietrueorfalse?
Ifthedefendantdeniesthathelied,orhisexplanationfortellinganadmittedlieisfalse,whatwashis
reasonforlying?
3. Oneobviousexplanationforlyingwhenaccusedisthatthedefendantisguilty.Somepeopleadmittheir
guilt,otherstrytolietheirwayoutoftrouble.Fromtimetotime,however,defendantslieagainsttheir
ownbestinterests.Thefactthatthedefendantispreparedtoliebecausehehassomeinterestoranother
toservebylyingisalmostcertaintoaffecthiscredibilityasawitnessgenerally,since,ifthedefendantis
preparedtolieonceaboutsomethingimportant,hemaywelllieaboutsomethingelseimportant.
4. ThepurposeoftheliesorLucasdirectionissimplytoalertthejurytothefactthatalietoldbya
defendantdoesnot,ofitself,necessarilyindicate(technically,isnotnecessarilyprobativeof)guiltbecause
hemayhavehadsomeotherreasonforlying.
Origins
5. Theissuewhetherthedefendantsliesamounttoevidenceofguiltgainedprominencewhenthejurywas
requiredtolookforcorroboration,orindependentsupport,ofaccompliceevidence.Itwasimportantto
establishthattherewasnoinnocentreasonforlyingbecause,iftherewas,theliecouldnotsupportthe
evidencewhichrequiredcorroboration.Theoldrulesrequiringcorroborationhavenowlargelygone.In
Lucas
431
theCourtofAppeal(LordLaneCJ)gavethefollowingexplanation:
To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must frst of all be deliberate.
Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a realisation of guilt
andafearofthetruth.Thejuryshouldinappropriatecasesberemindedthatpeoplesometimeslie,for
example,inanattempttobolsterupajustcause,oroutofshameoroutofawishtoconcealdisgraceful
behaviourfromtheirfamily.Fourthlythestatementmustbeclearlyshowntobealiebyevidenceother
thanthatoftheaccomplicewhoistobecorroborated,thatistosaybyadmissionorbyevidencefroman
independentwitness.
432
Footnotes
431
[1981]QB720,[1981]73CrAppR159
432
[1981]73CrAppR159atpages162-163
243
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Furthermore,theCourtheldthat:
Providingthattheliestoldincourtfulflthefourcriteriawhichwehavesetoutabove,weareunabletosee
whytheyshouldnotbeavailableforthejurytoconsiderinjustthesamewayasliestoldoutofcourt.
433
Extension of the principle

6. InGoodway
434
thedefendantwaschargedwithmurder.Hewasidentifedbywitnesses.Anothermanwas
presentwhoboreacloseresemblancetohim.Ininterviewthedefendantdeniedbeinginproximityto
thedeceased.However,bloodwasfoundonhisclothing.Theprosecutionreliedonthelietosupportits
casethatthedefendantwasthekiller.TheCourtheldthatthejuryshouldhavereceivedaLucasdirection.
LordTaylorCJsaid,moreover
435
:
In our view, there is no reason in principle or logic for drawing a distinction between corroboration
andidentifcationcasesandanyothercaseinwhichliesmayberelieduponinsupportofprosecution
evidence. Accordingly, we consider [counsels] broader proposition is sound and that aLucas direction
shouldbegiven,savewhereitisotioseasindicatedinDehar,
436
wheneverliesare,ormaybe,reliedupon
assupportingevidenceofthedefendantsguilt.
Present scope of the principle
7. TheCourtofAppealgavefurtherassistanceonthecircumstanceswhenaLucasdirectionwasandwas
notrequiredinBurgeandPegg
437
.Counselhadadvancedtheargumentthatthedirectionwasrequired
wheneverthedefendantgaveevidenceuponadiscreteissuewhichmightbedisbelieved.Theargument
wasrejected.
8. Inthestraightforwardcase,wheretheprosecutionwitnessesgiveoneversionofeventsandthe
defendantquiteanother,thejurymaydecidethattheyaresuretheprosecutionscaseistrueandthe
defendantscaseisnot.Iftheydo,itmustfollowthataspectsofthedefendantsaccountwereuntrue;
but,thereis,inthesecircumstances,noneedforthejudgetowarnthejuryagainsttreatingthe
defendantsliesasprobativeofguiltbecauseonlyacceptanceoftheevidencefortheprosecutioncould
demonstratethatthedefendanthadlied,orthathehadliedbecausehewasguilty.Theproblemonly
ariseswhen,quiteapartfromthestrengthorweaknessoftheprosecutionevidenceontheessentialissue,
thejuryareinvitedortemptedtoinferguiltfromthedefendantsliesaboutothermatters.
9. InBurgeandPeggKennedyLJidentifedthecircumstancesinwhichadirectionmayberequiredas
follows
438
:
1.Wherethedefencereliesonanalibi.

2. Wherethejudgeconsidersitdesirableornecessarytosuggestthatthejuryshouldlookforsupportor
corroborationofonepieceofevidencefromotherevidenceinthecase,andamongstthatotherevidence
drawsattentiontoliestold,orallegedlytold,bythedefendant.
Footnotes
433
Atpage163
434
[1994]98CrAppR11
435
Atpage17
436
[1969]NZLR763
437
[1996]1CrAppR193
438
Atpages173-174
244
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
439
[1996]1CrAppR39
440
[1996]2CrAppR457
441
Supra
3.Wheretheprosecutionseektoshowthatsomethingsaid,eitherinoroutofthecourt,inrelationtoa
separateanddistinctissuewasalie,andtorelyonthatlieasevidenceofguiltinrelationtothecharge
whichissoughttobeproved.
4.Wherealthoughtheprosecutionhavenotadoptedtheapproachtowhichwehavejustreferred,the
judgereasonablyenvisagesthatthereisarealdangerthatthejurymaydoso.
IfaLucasdirectionisgivenwherethereisnoneedforsuchadirection(asinthenormalcasewherethere
isastraightconfictofevidence),itwilladdcomplexityanddomoreharmthangood.Therefore,inour
judgment, a judge would be wise always, before speeches and summing-up in circumstance number
four,andperhapsalsoinothercircumstances,toconsiderwithcounselwhether,intheinstantcase,such
adirectionisinfactrequired,and,ifso,howitshouldbeformulated.Ifthematterisdealtwithinthat
way,thiscourtwillbeveryslowtointerferewiththeexerciseofthejudgesdiscretion.Further,thejudge
should,ofcourse,beassistedbycounselinidentifyingcaseswhereadirectioniscalledfor.
10. Despitetheclarityofthisadviceitisnotalwaysastraightforwardjudgementwhethertheliegoestothe
centralissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefence(whenaLucasdirectionwillnotbeappropriate)
ortoacollateralissue(whenitmaybe).CompareLesley
439
andHarron
440
.
The terms of the direction
11. AstothetermsofthedirectionKennedyLJsaidinBurgeandPegg
441
:
Thedirectionshould,ifgiven,sofaraspossible,betailoredtothecircumstancesofthecase,butitwill
normallybesuffcientifitmakesthetwobasicpoints:
1. thattheliemustbeadmittedorprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt,and;
2.thatthemerefactthatthedefendantliedisnotinitselfevidenceofguiltsincedefendantsmaylie
forinnocentreasons,soonlyifthejuryissurethatthedefendantdidnotlieforaninnocentreason
canaliesupporttheprosecutioncase.
The trial judges decision
12. Thefrstquestionforthetrialjudgeiswhetheraliesdirectionisrequiredatall.Inmakingthisjudgement
ausefulquestiontoaskiswhetherthejurywould,ineffect,havetobesureofguiltbeforetheycould
besurethatthedefendantlied.Ifso,itisprobablynotacaseforaliesdirectionbecausethedefendants
allegedliegoestotheheartoftheissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefence.
13. Thewayinwhichtheprosecutiondeployedtheallegedlieincrossexaminationmay,butwillnot
necessarily,providetheanswer.Acommontechniquefortheprosecutoris,byutilisingtheevidence
ofhisownwitnesses,tochallengethedefendantondetailsattheperipheryofhiscase,theobject
beingtotestwhetherthedefendantispreparedtomakeappropriateconcessions.Ifhedoesnot,there
isgroundforanaccusationoflying,butthereisnotonthataccountalonelikelytobeadangerthatthe
jurywilljumptoaconclusionofguilt.

24S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
14. Wherealietoldoutofcourtisadmittedandexplained,whetherconvincinglyornot,itmaynotbeof
suchsubstancethatthejuryisliabletoequatetheliewithguilt.InTucker
442
thedefendantwascharged
withgrievousbodilyharm.ItwasallegedthatwithanotherheattackedV.Hisdefencewasthathe
intervenedinafghtbetweentwoothersandactedinselfdefence.Hewasatfrstevasiveininterview
abouttheidentityofthoseinvolvedintheincidentinwhichheintervened.Hisexplanationwasthat
hedidnotwanttogetinvolvedintheinvestigation.Whileremindingthejuryofthedefendants
explanationthejudgesaidnothingaboutthepossiblesignifcanceofhislies.Theprosecutionargued
successfullyonappealthatcrossexaminationhadbeendirectedtothedefendantsgeneralcredibility
andnottoaninferenceofguilt.Thecourtheldthatafullliesdirectionwouldnothavebeenappropriate
(butseeparagraphs16and18below).ProfessorDiBirch,inhercommentaryuponthereportinthe
CriminalLawReview,remarked:
There is always a thin line between guilt and credibility where untruths in an accuseds account are
concerned,andthedirectionshouldnotdependontheprecisewayinwhichtheliesaredeployedbythe
prosecution.Thisdoesnotmeanthateverytimeprosecutingcounseldrawsattentiontosomepointof
detailinanearlierstatementwhichtheaccusednowadmitsisuntruethatthejudgemustembarkona
Lucasdirection.
15. Iftheallegedlie,whilenotattheheartoftheissuebetweentheprosecutionandthedefendant,concerns
animportantcollateralmatter,ofwhichanalibidefenceistheclearestexample,theliesdirectionshould
begiven.Proofthatthealibiisuntrueisproofthatthedefendantwaspresent.Proofofpresenceis
not,withoutmore,proofthatthedefendantcommittedthecrime,butthedangerexiststhatwithout
guidancethejurywillassumethatthemotivefortheliewasguilt.
16. Itissuggestedthattheguidingtestforthetrialjudgeiswhetherthereisadangerthejurywillassume
thatbecausethedefendantliedaboutanimportantmatterhemustbeguilty.Themostdiffcult
decisionsarethosewhichareontheborderline.Noinjusticeorunfairnessislikelytobecausedbygiving
aliesdirectioninsuchacase.
17. Thetrialjudgemayreachtheconclusionthat,whilethetestforaliesdirectionhasbeenmet,adirection
intheparticularcasebeforehimwillsimplyservetoconfuseortodefectthejuryfromtherealissues.
Providedthejuryisdirectedtofocusontheprosecutionevidence,toldwhatlimitedusecanbemadeof
lies(credibilityonly),andwarnedthattheliescannotproveguilt,themischiefwhichthefulldirection
seekstoavoidwillberemoved.Thesecondillustrationbelowattemptstoprovideanexampleofsucha
direction.
18. Whenthetrialjudgedecidesthatafullliesdirectionisnotappropriateitmaystillbenecessarytosay
somethingabouttheallegationoflying,ifonlytopointoutwhatrelevanceitdoesordoesnothave.
ThatwastheconclusionofthecourtinTucker
443
.Thetrialjudgemight,forexample,havedirected
thejurythatwhilethedefendantsinitialprevaricationmayaffecttheirjudgementofthedefendants
evidenceastohowhebecameinvolved,orhisevidencegenerally,itprovidednoassistanceontheissue
whether,whenhetookpartintheviolence,heactedinselfdefenceornot.
Footnotes
442
[1994]CrimLR683
443
Supra
24o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Lies and bad character
19. InCampbell
444
thedefendantwaschargedwithmurder.Hehadearlierpleadedguiltytounlawful
possessionoffrearmsandammunitionfoundinhispossession11daysaftertheshooting.Therewas
alsofoundonagloveinhispossessionfrearmsresidue.Theprosecutionreliedontheseconvictionsand
thegloveasevidenceofbadcharacterfromwhichthejurycouldinferapropensitytocommitfrearms
offences.Thedefendantadvancedexplanationswhich,ifaccepted,wouldremovethepotentialfora
fndingofpropensity.Itwasarguedonappealthatthetrialjudgeshouldhavegivenaliesdirection.
Thecourtheldthatanoccasionforaliesdirectionhadnotarisen.Eitherthejurycouldnotexcludethe
defendantsexplanation(inwhichcasethedefendanthadnotlied),orthejurywoulddisbelievethe
explanation(inwhichcasethejurywouldfndpropensity).Sincethejurywouldbegivenapropensity
warning(astheyhadbeen)thedefendantwasadequatelyprotectedagainstanassumptionofguilt.
20. Itmaynotbethatinallsuchsituationsbothabadcharacterandaliesdirectionwillbeinappropriate.
Theremaybeariskthatthejurywillfndnotonlypropensitybutalsothatthedefendantwouldnot
haveliedabouthisbadcharacterunlesshewasguilty.AliesdirectioninCampbellcouldsimplyhave
pointedoutthatthedefendanthadanobviouspossiblemotiveforplacinganinnocentglossonthebad
characterevidence.Evenifhehadliedabouthisaccesstoandfamiliaritywithunlawfulfrearmsitdidnot
automaticallyfollowhewasguiltyofthismurder.
Directions
Thefollowingrepresentsgoodpractice:
DiscussionwiththeadvocatesisessentialbothastothequestionwhetheraLucasdirectionisrequired
atalland,inanyevent,astothetermsinwhichtheissueofliesistobelefttothejury
445
.
Theliesonwhichtheprosecutionrelies,orwhichthejudgeconsidersmaybeusedbythejuryto
supportaninferenceofguilt,shouldbeidentifedforthejury.
Thejurymustbesurethatadeliberateliewastoldeitherbecausethelieisadmittedorbecauseitis
proved.
Anyexplanationforthelietenderedbythedefendantoradvancedinargumentonhisbehalfshould
besummarisedforthejury.
Thejurymaybetoldthatthedefendantslieisrelevanttothecredibilityofthedefendantsaccountin
interviewand/orevidence.
Thejuryshouldbedirectedthatbeforetheycantreatthedefendantslieasadditionalsupportforthe
prosecutioncasetheymustexclude,sothattheyaresure,thepossibilitythattheliewastoldforan
innocentreason(meaningareasonotherthanguilt).Suchdirectionsshouldalwaysbeframedwithin
thecontextofthefactsofthecase.
Footnotes
444
[2009]EWCACrim1076
445
Codsi[2009]EWCACrim1618at27
247
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shouldthedefendantadvanceareasonwhyhelied,itisnotincumbentuponthejudgetolistothers
unlessitisareasonablepossibilitythattheymayariseonthefacts;nor,whennoneisadvanced,isit
necessarytocovereverytheoreticalpossibility,onlythosewhichmightreasonablyariseonthefacts.
Whatweightthejuryattachestothelieisamatterforthem.However,itmaybenecessarytoascertain
whetherthelieallegediscapableofsupportinganadverseinferenceonsomeonly,orall,oftheissues
betweentheprosecutionanddefence.Where,therefore,theoffencechargedrequiresspecifcintent
andthemotivefortheliecouldhavebeenanattempttoavoidachargeevenofthelesseroffence,the
juryshouldreceiveadirectiontobecautiousbeforeusingthelieasanysupportfortheinferenceof
specifcintent.
446
Thejuryshouldbetoldthatliescannotofthemselvesproveguilt.Theymay,dependingontheirview,
providesupportfortheprosecutioncaseoraspecifcpartofit.
447
Oneofthereasonswhyliesdirectionscanbeconfusingtojuriesisthatconceptssuchascredibility,
consciousnessorrealisationofguilt,thedefendantsliesmaysupportaninferenceofguilt,and
supportfortheprosecutioncase,areunfamiliarandcapableofbeingmisunderstoodunless
explainedthroughthefactualcontextofthecase.
Appendix 1containsformerSpecimenDirection27whichhasreceivedapprovalintheCourtofAppealand
continuestobeausefulreference.
Illustration allegation of wounding with intent defendant admits lying in interview when
claiming to have been elsewhere defendant denies having knife in his possession evidence that he
left his home with a knife lies direction warning against using lies to infer specifc intent
MissAgaveevidencethatshesawafghtbetweenVandYtakingplaceoutsidethepub.Amanshelater
identifedasthedefendantapproached.Shesawtheglintofsomethingshinyinhisrighthand.Withthe
samehandthedefendantappearedtodeliverablowtoVsstomachandVwenttothegroundsufferinga
woundtotheabdomen.
The prosecution invites you to conclude that when he was interviewed under caution the defendant lied
aboutimportantmatters.First,hemaintainedthroughouthisfrstinterviewthathewasnotpresentatthe
sceneoftheassaultonV.Secondly,thedefendantsaidininterview,andhasmaintainedinhisevidence,that
hedidnottakeaknifetothesceneoftheassaultonV.Theprosecutionhassuggestedtoyouthattheselies
weretoldinanattempttoconcealthedefendantsguilt.
Ineedtoprovideyouwithaspecifcdirectionhowyoushouldapproachevidenceofallegedlies.
Footnotes
446
Bullen[2008]EWCACrim4at40
447
Woodward[2001]EWCACrim2051at24-25
248
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thefrstquestionforyoutoresolveiswhethertheliesareproved.
The defendant admitted in interview and in evidence that he lied when claiming that he had not been
presentattheassault.Youwillnot,therefore,haveanydiffcultyinconcludingthatthefrstlieisproved.
However,theissuewhetherthedefendanttookaknifetothesceneremainsindispute.Bgaveevidencethat,
beforetheywentoutthatnight,thedefendantwenttothekitchendrawer,removedavegetableknifeand
placeditinhispocket.Bsaidheaskedthedefendantwhyhehadtheknife.Thedefendanttoldhim,Just
incase.AftertheyhadconsumedacoupleofpintstogetherBwentwithotherfriendstothekebabshop,
leavingthedefendantatthebar.If,havingconsideredtheevidenceofBandthedefendant,youaresurethat
Btoldyouthetruththenyourconclusionwouldbethatthedefendanthasliedaboutasecondimportant
matter.IfyouarenotsurethatBtoldyouthetruththenyoucannottreatthedefendantsdenialasalie,and
youshouldputtheprosecutionsassertionaboutthesecondlietoonesideandignoreit.
Youwillthereforebeconsideringtheeffectofatleastonelieand,dependingonyourconclusion,two.
Youwillneedtodecidewhetheroneorotherorbothoftheseallegedliesassistsyoutoaconclusionwhether
thedefendantdidindeedstabVwithaknife.Theymayassistyouintwoways:
First, the fact that the defendant has lied about an important matter may affect your view of him as a
witnessgenerally.Itisnotboundto.Thatisforyoutodecide.
Second,itisopentoyoutoconsiderwhetherthedefendantslieslendsomesupporttoMissAsevidencethat
itwasthedefendantwhostabbedV.Thattooisforyoutodecide.
However,youshouldnotassumethatbecausethedefendantliedhemustbeguilty.Defendantsmaytelllies
forreasonsotherthanguilt.Thedefendanttoldyouthathedeniedbeingpresentattheincidentbecausehe
wasscaredthatifhetoldthetruthhewouldnotbebelieved.Thatisanexplanationwhichyoumustconsider.
Ifyouthinkhisexplanationistrueormaybetruethenhisliecannotassisttheprosecutioncase.
Thedefendantcontinuestodenythatheleftthehousewithaknifeinhispocket.Ifyouaresurehedid,you
willneedtoconsiderwhyhehasliedaboutthat.Mayithavebeenbecausehewasscaredorforsomesuch
innocentreason?Onlyifyouaresurethattherewasnoinnocentreasonfortheliecanyouconsiderwhether
thedefendantliedabouttheknifebecausethetruthisthatheinfictedthewound.
Thesearethequestionsyouneedtoconsider.Whatconclusionsyoudrawfromthemareforyoutojudge.
Remember that lies alone cannot prove the case against the defendant. The essential evidence for the
prosecutionisthatofMissA.Youmustbesurethatheridentifcationofthedefendantasthemanwho
stabbedVistrueandaccurate.
Evenifyouaredriventotheconclusionthatthedefendantliedinanattempttoconcealhisguiltofwounding,
youmayconsiderthathislieswillbeoflittleornohelpontheissueofintent.Thedefendantwouldhavehad
motiveenoughtolieabouthisinvolvementinawounding.Couldyoubesurethatheliedtoconcealhis
intentaswell?Forthisreason,whenconsidering,ifyoudo,thequestionofhisintent,youshouldconcentrate
onthecircumstancesinwhichthewoundwasdeliveredasIhavealreadysummarisedthem.
24
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration warning not to treat lies as additional support for the prosecution case
Thedefendantadmittedlyliedtothepoliceininterviewwhenheclaimedthathewasnotpresentduring
theassaultuponV.Hetoldyouthathewasscaredtotellthetruththathewaspresentwhensomeoneelse
stabbedVbecausehethoughthemightgettheblame.Thatisanexplanationwhichyoushouldconsider.
Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantalsoliedwhenhedeniedbeinginpossessionofaknife.Ifyou
accepttheevidenceofBthenplainlythedefendantdidtakeaknifeoutwithhimthatnight.Ifyouaresure
thatthedefendanttoldadeliberatelie,youareentitledtoconsiderhow,ifatall,thataffectsyourviewofhis
evidencegenerally.
Alietoldbyadefendant,whetherinintervieworinevidence,iscapableofaffectingyourjudgementwhether
hehasinotherrespectsgiventruthfulevidenceornot.Theweightyouattachtothelieisamatterforyouto
decide.Butifyouthinkthedefendantdidgiveormayhavegivenyouanhonestexplanationastowhyhe
lied,hisliewouldbeoflittleornovaluetoyou.
Whatyoushouldnotdoisdecidethiscaseonlies.Liescannotestablishwhetheritwasthedefendantwho
stabbedV.YoucanconvictthedefendantonlyifyouaresurethatMissAgavetruthfulandreliableevidence.
InmakingthatdecisionyouareentitledtotakeaccountofBsevidence,ifyouacceptit,thatthedefendant
wentoutthatnightarmedwithaknife.
Sources
Archbold4-402/402a;BlackstoneF1.18/20
2S0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Out of Court Statements by Another Person as Evidence For or Against the
Defendant
Introduction
The Normal Rule
1. Thenormalruleisthatanoutofcourtstatementbyonedefendant(made,forexample,inaninterview
orconfession)isnotevidenceagainstanyotherdefendant.Where,however,themakerofthestatement
givesevidenceinajointtrial,hisevidenceisadmissibleforallpurposes,includinginproofofguiltofother
defendants.
448
2. InHayter
449
threedefendantswerejointlychargedwithmurder.TheprosecutioncasewasthatApaid
Ctocarryoutthekillingofherco-habiteeandthatBwasthego-between.TheevidenceagainstC
comprisedhisconfessiontohisgirlfriendinwhichheimplicatedB.TheevidenceofCsconfessionwas
notadmissibleagainstBbutproofoftheguiltofCwastheessentialstartingpointfortheprosecutions
circumstantialcaseagainstB.ByamajoritytheHouseofLordsupheldthetrialjudgesdirectiontothe
jurythatifCsconfessiontohisgirlfriendmadethemsureofCsguilt,theywereentitledtoregardCs
guiltasprovedwhenconsideringthecaseagainstB.Section74PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984
didnotapplytojointtrialsbutproofwithinajointtrialoftheguiltofdefendantC,byadmissibleevidence
againsthim,wassuffcientproofofCsguiltinthecaseagainstB,notwithstandingthattheevidence
whichprovedCsguiltwasnotalsoadmissibleagainstB.Thiswasnotanabrogationofthecommonlaw
rulebutastatementofitslimits.
Sections 114(1)(d) and 119 Criminal Justice Act 2003
3. SincethehearsayprovisionsoftheCriminalJusticeAct2003cameintoforce,theoutofcourtstatement
ofanotherperson,includingastatementofconfession,canbeadmissibleintheinterestsofjusticein
proofofthematterstatedundersection114(1)(d),whethertheapplicationismadebytheprosecutionor
thedefence.
450
InProsecutionAppeal(No2of2008),Y
451
theCourtofAppealheardanappealagainstthe
trialjudgesrulingthattheprosecutioncouldnotseektoadmitagainstYtheoutofcourtconfessionof
XimplicatingY.Xhadonanearlieroccasionpleadedguiltytomurder.Thetrialjudgeruledthatsection
114(1)(d)didnot,inconsequenceofthecommonlawrulespreservedbysection118,applytothird
partystatementsofconfessionwhichimplicatedothers.TheCourtofAppealdisagreed.Section114(1)(d)
appliedtoallformsofhearsay,whateverthevehicleinwhichitwasdelivered(unlessitwasapreserved
commonlawexceptionundersection118inwhichcaseitwouldbeadmissibleundersection114(1)(b)),
andappliedwhethertheapplicantwastheprosecutionorthedefence.Ontheotherhand,asuccessful
applicationbytheprosecutiontoprovetheguiltofYbytheadmissionofthehearsayconfessionofXwas
anothermatter.HughesLJreferredtotheobstaclesandconcluded
452
:

Footnotes
448
Rudd[1948]32CrAppR138;Gunewardene[1951]2KB600,[1951]35CrAppR80;Rhodes[1960]44CrAppR23.Wherein
evidenceonedefendantimplicatesanother,notethataMakanjuolawarningtothejurymayberequiredtotheeffectthathemay
haveapurposeofhisowntoserveseeCorroborationandtheneedforcaution
449
[2005]2CrAppR3,[2005]UKHL6
450
Seealsoparagraph6below
451
[2008]2AllER484,[2008]EWCACrim10
452
59.Notealsotheconsiderationsidentifedin49-58,60and62.SeealsoBandS[2008]EWCACrim365(admissibilityunder
section114(1)(d)ofconfessionofoneco-accusedimplicatinganother)
2S1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Althoughsection114(1)(d)isavailabletotheCrownasitistoadefendant,theidentityoftheapplicantis
plainlyrelevanttotheinterestsofjusticetest.Itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthattheinterestsofjusticewill
pointinthesamedirectionuponanapplicationbytheCrownastheymightuponanapplicationmadeby
adefendant.Section114(2)(i)moreoverrequiresconsiderationoftheinjuriousconsequencesofadmission
(prejudice)tothepartyfacingtheevidencewhichwillarisefromthediffcultyofchallengingit.Sincethe
burdenofprovingthecaseisupontheCrownandtothehighcriminalstandard,veryconsiderablecarewill
needtobetakeninanycaseinwhichtheCrownseekstorelyuponanout-of-courtstatementassupplying
itwithacaseagainstthedefendantwhenotherwiseitwouldhavenone.Insuchacaseifthereisgenuine
diffcultyinthedefendantchallenging,andthejuryevaluating,theevidence,thepotentialdamagetothe
defendantfromthatdiffcultyisverylarge.
4. InBandS
453
threeschoolboyswerechargedwiththeattemptedrobberyofV.Allweretravellingonabus.
BwasallegedtohavedemandedfromVallhisbelongings.IninterviewundercautionSmaderemarks
whichimplicatedBintheattemptedrobbery.AttrialS,whileadmittingincrossexaminationonbehalf
oftheprosecutionthathegavethoseanswers,claimedthathecouldnotrecalltheevent.Thejudge
directedthejurythattheycouldregardSsanswersininterviewasevidenceinthecaseagainstB.The
CourtofAppealheldthatthejudgehadfailedproperlytoassesstheadmissibilityofthehearsayunder
section114(1)(d)orsection119(previousinconsistentstatement).However,thehearsaywasplainly
admissibleandthejudgehadgivenanappropriatewarningtotheeffectthatShad,wheninterviewed,
aninterestofhisowntoserve.Ontheissueofadmissibility,theVicePresident,LathamLJsaid:
13.Itisandalwayshasbeentritelawthatifinatrialaparticulardefendantadopts,inthesenseofagrees
to and accepts, the contents of an interview to the police, that immediately makes the contents of the
interviewpartofhisevidence.Thatispurecommonsense;itispartofhisoralevidencetothejury.But
whenoneusesthephraseadoptinghisinterview,thatdoesnotmean,asthejudgeappearstoconsider
here,acceptingthatthatiswhathesaid;itmeansmakingthecontentsoftheinterviewpartofhisevidence,
inthesenseofagreeingthatthatiswhathappened.
14. Whatdoesnotappeartohavehappenedinthiscasewasaproperappreciationofthestatusofthe
contentsoftheinterviewinthelightoftheprovisionsoftheCriminalJusticeAct2003.Thestatementsmade
bytheappellantSininterviewconstitutehearsayevidenceundersection114andcouldbeconsideredfor
admissionbeforethejuryinthecontextofthecodecontainedinsection114.Further,becausetheappellant
statedthathecouldnotremembertheeventswhichhehadtalkedaboutininterview,thecontentsofthe
interviewalsoconstitutedpreviousinconsistentstatementswithinthemeaningofsection119ofthe2003
Actandwereaccordinglyadmissibleinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthatsection,butsubjectalwaysto
theprovisionsofsection78ofthePoliceandCriminalEvidenceActandsection126ofthe2003Act.
15. ItfollowsthatthereisvalidityinthecriticismmadebyMissRyanonbehalfofthisappellantastothe
wayinwhichthisevidencewasadmittedbythejudge,inparticularthefactthatbecausehedidnotconsider
theprovisionsofsection114,section119,section126,section78ofthePoliceandCriminalEvidenceActhe
didnotapplyhismindtothesafeguardscontainedwithinthatcoderelatingtotheadmissibilityof,onthe
onehand,hearsayevidenceand,ontheotherhand,previousinconsistentstatements.
16.Thequestionthereforearisesastowhatweshoulddoaboutthatfailurebythejudgetodealwiththe
matter properly. In full submissions which have been put before us by Mr Keith as the Advocate to the
Footnotes
453
[2008]EWCACrim365
2S2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Court,forwhichweareextremelygratefulandwhich,ifwemaysayso,setoutimpeccablythehistoryof
theprovisionswithwhichweareconcerned,hesubmitsthatthejudgewasclearlywrongasamatterof
lawinbelievingthatthematerialcouldbeadmittedonthebasisthathesetoutinhisruling.Hesubmits
thatthematerialwasclearlyadmissibleundersection119andalsoundersection114,subjecttothefact
thatthejudgeneitherconsideredsection114(2)northeotherprovisionstowhichwehavereferredwhich
providethesafetynetforadmissibilityofwhatareessentiallyhearsaystatements.Hesubmits,however,that
inthecontextofthiscasetherewasreallyonlyoneanswerifoneappliedthosesafeguards,andthatwas
thatitwasappropriatetoadmitthosestatements.
17. Weentirelyagree.Itfollowsthatinsofarasthestatementswereadmittedonthewrongbasis,thatdoes
notaffectandcannotaffectthesafetyofthisconviction.Accordingly,wedismisstheappealinsofarasitis
baseduponthatground.
ItwouldbeunwisetotreatthedecisioninBandSassupportforthepropositionthatSsinterviewshouldhave
beenadmittedintheinterestsofjusticeundersection114(1)(d).Noexerciseofjudgmentuponthemattersto
beconsideredundersection114(2)wasattemptedbythetrialjudgeorbytheCourtofAppeal.Thespecifc
occasionfortheadmissionofthehearsaywasthemakingofapreviousinconsistentstatement.
Section 76A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
5. Whereaconfessionwasmadebyoneoftwoormoredefendantsbeingtriedinthesameproceedings,
section76APoliceandCriminalEvidence1984permitstheadmissionofthatconfessiononthe
applicationofanotherinsofarasitisrelevanttoanymatterinissueintheproceedingsprovideditis
notexcludedbecauseitwasobtainedbyoppressionorthingssaidordonelikelytomaketheconfession
unreliable.InJohnson
454
oneoftwoco-accusedhadearlierenteredapleaofguiltyonawrittenbasis.
Hewaspermittedtovacatetheplea.Atthesubsequentjointtrial,hisco-accusedwasgivenleaveto
introduceinevidencethewrittenbasis.PillLJexplainedthedecisionthus:
20TheRecorderdecidedtoconductavoirediretoinvestigatethecircumstancesinwhichtheguiltyplea
andthewrittenbasisofpleaweretendered.Bothwereclearlyrelevanttomattersinissueinthecase.The
RecorderheardevidencefromtheappellantandconsideredthetranscriptoftheproceedingsbeforeJudge
NicholasJones.
21Theissueatthetrialmustbetreatedasanissueastotheadmissibilityofevidence.Inrulingthatthe
evidencewasadmissible,theRecorderclearlyhadinmindtheprovisionsofSection76A(2)ofthe1984Act.
Hestatedthathehadcometoaclearconclusionthatthepleaandbasisofpleawerenotonthebalance
of probabilities obtained by anything said or done which was likely in the circumstances existing at the
timetorenderunreliablethepleaandbasisofplea.Theconfessionwasadmissibleattherequestoftheco-
accusedunderS76A(1).Thejudgewasnotrequiredtoexerciseanyresidualdiscretionhehadtoexclude
theevidenceintheinterestsofafairtrial.Therulingwasgivenaftertheappellanthaddecidedtogive
evidence.
22 We understand the frustration of a defendant who is permitted to vacate a guilty plea but not then
permitted to enjoy the fruits of vacation by way of a trial unencumbered by the earlier plea. On the
Footnotes
454
[2007]171JP574,[2007]EWCACrim1651
2S3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
evidence,however,theissueatthistrialwasessentiallybetweenthetwodefendantsandthedecisionin
Myers
455
,andSection76Aofthe1989Act,aredesignedtoensureafairtrialinthatsituation......
6. InFinch
456
twomentravellinginavehiclecontainingafrearmandammunitionwerearrestedand
charged.D1madeaconfessioninwhichheexoneratedD2.D1pleadedguilty.AthissubsequenttrialD2
appliedtoadducetheconfessionofD1insupportofhisdefencetohavebeenignorantofthepresenceof
thefrearmandammunitioninthecar.TheapplicationwasrightlyrefusedsinceD1wasnot,atthetime
oftheapplication,jointlychargedinthesameproceedingswithinthemeaningofsection76APACE1984.
Astothealternativeapplicationundersection114(1)(d),HughesLJsaid:
20.TheappellantmadealternativeapplicationtoadducethecontentsofRicherspoliceinterviewsunder
thissection.TheCrownarrangedforRichertobeproducedatcourtandhewaspresent.Thejudgewas
toldthathewasreluctanttogiveevidence.Hemayhavehadhissolicitorspresentatcourt-hecertainly
hadbeenrepresented.Thejudgewaseithershownortoldaboutaletterwhichhadbeenwrittenbyhis
solicitorssometimebeforehandandhewastoldthatRicherdeclinedtoseeFinchsrepresentatives.The
letterindicatedthatRicherhadbeenadvisednottogiveevidencebecause,asitwassuggested,hedidnot
wishtojeopardisehispositionsofarassentencewasconcernedandthelettersaidthathewouldrefuseto
answerquestionsonthegroundsthattheymightincriminatehimfurther,havingalreadypleadedguilty.
Therewasareferenceinthelettertohishavingpleadedguiltyonabasis.Thiswasnotacaseinwhich
anywrittenbasisforpleahadbeenadvanced,stilllessaccepted,andhadtherebeenanassertionasto
somethingfallingshortofthedefenceofduressbutamountingtopressuretocommittheoffence,itislikely
thattherewouldhavehadtobesomekindoffact-fndinghearinginthecaseofRicher.
21. Howeverthatmaybe,thejudgeindicatedthathewasnotsatisfedwiththatbareassertion.Aftertime
for consideration, Miss Radcliffe declined to call Richer. The judge had plainly contemplated that Richer
shouldbeputintothewitnessboxsothathisreactioncouldbejudgedbeforeanyquestionaroseofhisout
ofcourtstatementsbeingadmitted.HeseemstohavecontemplatedRicherbeingcalledforthatpurpose
immediatelybeforethejury.Apossiblealternativepreliminarymighthavebeentoapplytocallhimintothe
witnessboxintheabsenceofthejurytoexplorehisreactionandthelegitimacy(ifany)ofhisstance,butno
applicationtodothatwasevermade.Instead,theappellantstoodonthepropositionthattocallhimwhen
hewasreluctanttogiveevidence,or(intheusefulcolloquialexpression)blind,wassomethingthatcould
notbeexpectedofhim.ThusthejudgehadtoresolvewithouthearingRicherthequestionwhetherthe
interestsofjusticerequiredhisoutofcourtassertionstobeadducedashearsay.
22. The judge worked through the relevant factors set out in section 114(2). He accepted that the
evidence was, if true, of substantial probative value. He was plainly well aware that the assertion went
totheheartofthedefenceofFinchandthattherewasotherwiseonlytheevidenceofFinchhimself,so
that the assertion was of considerable importance to the case as a whole. He concluded, however, that
oral evidence of what Richer said about Finch was available to be given. He was unable to see how
Richer could damage his own position by giving evidence that Finch was an innocent passenger.
He also considered, in reference to sub-paragraph (e) of section 114(2), the potential unreliability
of Richer if he was not prepared to support in the witness box what he had said to the police. He
correctly addressed the diffculty for the Crown of controverting or challenging Richers assertion
if Richer were not in the witness box to make it. His conclusion was that the interests of justice did
Footnotes
455
[1998]AC124
456
[2007]1WLR1645,[2007]EWCACrim36
2S4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
notcallfortheinterviewstobeadmittedashearsay.Plainlyinreachingthatconclusiontheprincipalfactor
wasthefactthatRicherwasavailabletogiveoralevidenceifcompelledtodoso,togetherwiththevarious
consequenceswhichthatentailed.
23. Thiswasasituationcallingfortheexerciseofthejudgmentofthetrialjudge.Thiscourtwillinterfere
if,butonlyif,hehasexerciseditonwrongprinciplesorreachedaconclusionwhichwasoutsidetheband
oflegitimatedecisionavailabletohim.Weareunabletoseethathisdecisioncanbecriticisedoneither
ground.Wedoacceptthattherearesomediffcultiesforanappellantandhiscounselinthissituationwhen
faced with a potential witness who is reluctant to give evidence. Richer would not of course have been
calledentirelyblind.Theremaynothavebeenarecentproofofevidencebutthereweretheinterviews
with the police, properly recorded, available as an indication of what he could say. Had he in evidence
notsupportedthemitwouldhavebeenopentoMissRadcliffetoseektotreathimasadverseand,had
thatbeendoneandhispreviousinconsistentstatementsputtohim,thelatterwouldunderthemodern
lawhavestoodasevidenceofanymatterstatedinthem-seesection119ofthenewCriminalJusticeAct
2003.Weunderstand,nevertheless,thatanappellantmightwelldecide,asthisonedidonadvice,that
callingsuchawitnesswasariskthathewasunpreparedtotake.Itdoesnot,however,followthatwherever
thathappenstheinterestsofjusticecallfortheadmissioninevidenceofsomethingwhichthereluctant
witnesshassaidoutofcourtbutisnotpreparedtosupportonoath.Onthecontrary,thereluctanceonly
underminesthereliabilityoftheevidence.WeagreewiththejudgethatinthiscaseRichersrefusaltogive
evidence voluntarily plainly carried the suggestion that he was anxious that he would not be believed.
WhetherhewasanxiousthathewouldbedisbelievedabouttheroleofFinchorabouthisownroleorabout
bothwecannottell,andnorcouldthejudge,buteitherwayhiscredibilitywasputseverelyinquestionby
hisreluctancetoenterthewitnessbox.Weshouldsaythatwereachthatconclusionwithoutexaminingin
detailwhataresaidtobeseveraldoubtfulfeaturesofRichersassertionswhichexonerateFinch.Intheend,
hadhisevidencebeenbeforethejurythosecriticismsofwhathesaidwouldhavebeen,weaccept,forthe
jury.
24. Whatevermightbethesituationifanerstwhileco-accusedweretobeunavailableorhaddemonstrably
goodreasonnottogiveevidence,itwill,asitseemstous,oftennotbeintheinterestsofjusticeforevidence
whichthegiverisnotpreparedtohavetestedtobeputuntestedbeforethejury.Itisnotinshortthelaw
that every reluctant witnesss evidence automatically can be put before the jury under section 114. We
aresatisfedthatinthiscasethejudgewasrightonbothissuesandthisappealmustinconsequencebe
dismissed.
Directions
Intheusualcase,thejurywillrequireaspecifcdirectionthattheoutofcourtstatementofonedefendant
isnotadmissibleinthecaseofanother.
If,however,theconfessionofadefendantsco-accusedorotherpersonhasbeenadmittedagainst
himuponanapplicationbytheprosecutionundersection114(1)(d)orsection119CriminalJusticeAct
2003
457
,appropriatedirectionswillberequiredtoenablethejurytomakeanassessmentofitsreliability,
andthejuryshouldreceiveaspecifcwarningaboutthepossibleself-interest,ifany,forthehearsay
assertionsmadeagainstthedefendant.
Footnotes
457
SeeChapter14Hearsay
2SS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Iftheconfessionofaco-accusedoranotherhasbeenadmitteduponanapplicationbythedefendant
undersection76APACE1984,orsection114(1)orsection119CJA2003
458
,appropriatedirectionswill
berequiredtoenablethejurytomakeanassessmentofitsreliability.Iftheeffectoftheconfessionisto
implicatethemakerofthestatementwhileexoneratingthedefendantitwillbeappropriatetoremind
thejuryoftheburdenandstandardofproofifthestatementistrueormaybetruethenitis(ormaybe)
inconsistentwiththedefendantsguilt.
Inajointtrial,theremayhavebeen,atthecloseoftheevidence,anapplicationbyD1foradirectionthat
ahearsaystatementintheinterviewofD2whichimplicatesD3isadmissibleinD1scase(supportingD1s
casethatD3wasresponsible).Thetrialjudgewillneedtoascertainthepurposeforwhichthedefendant
isseekingtorelyontheevidence.Intheexamplegiven,ifthestatementisadmittedthelegaldirections
willneedtobeframedsoastorefecttheburdenandstandardproofinthecasesofD1,D2andD3
respectively.Ifthestatementmaybetrue,itmayexonerateD1;D2may,however,havehadaninterestof
hisowntoserve;andinthecaseofD3theprosecutionmustsatisfythecriminalburdenandstandardof
proof.
Illustration standard warning that the out of court statement of one defendant is not evidence in the
case of the other
Whateachofthesedefendantssaidininterviewundercautionisevidenceonlyinhisowncase.Youmaynot
haveregardtoD1sanswersininterviewwhenconsideringthecaseofD2eventhoughD1madereferences
toD2,andthesameappliesinreverse.Thereasonforthisisthateachdefendantwasinterviewedseparately
andduringhisinterviewhisco-defendantwasnotpresenttomakeanycommentofhisownuponwhatwas
said.
[BothD1andD2havenowgivenevidence.Inlargemeasuretheyhaveadoptedandrepeatedwhatthey
saidininterview.Theyarebothpresentandeachhashadtheopportunitytochallengetheothersaccount.
Thustheevidenceofeachdefendantisrelevantandadmissibleintheotherscaseandyoumayhaveregard
toitforthatpurpose.]
Illustration previous inconsistent statement in interview by D1 statement becomes admissible
under section 119 evidence in the case of D2 Makanjuola warning
D1acceptsthatinhisinterviewundercautionheadmittedthat,inhispresence,D2madeademandfromV
formoney.Whencounselfortheprosecutionaskedhimaboutthispassageintheinterview,D1repeatedhis
denialthatD2hadmadeanysuchdemandandcouldprovidenoexplanationwhyheshouldhavesaidthe
oppositeininterview.Youwillneedtoconsiderwhichoftheseaccountsistrue.D1sadmissionininterviewis
evidencethatD2didindeedmakethedemandfromVformoney.IfyouaresurethatD1toldthetruthinhis
interviewundercautionyouareentitledtoactuponthatfndingwhenyouareconsideringthecasesofboth
D1andD2.
Footnotes
458
SeeChapter14Hearsay
2So
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
BeforeyourelyonD1sadmissionasevidenceagainstD2,youneedtobearinmind,frst,thatD2was
notpresentwhentheadmissionwasmade.Hewasinnopositiontochallengewhatwasbeingsaidand
youdonotknowwhathisreactionmighthavebeenifhehadbeenpresent.Secondly,D1wasalsounder
suspicion.Hehadhisowninteresttolookafterwhenbeinginterviewed.Inthepresentcircumstancesyou
maywonderhowD1couldhavebeenhelpinghisowncasebyadmittingthatD2madeademandofV
inhispresence,sinceitwasbeingputtohimthatbothofthemranoffwithVsmoney.However,youwill
appreciatethat,whenasuspectisbeinginterviewedundercaution,self-protectionisapowerfulincentiveto
defectresponsibility,howeverslighttheadvantagemaynowappear.
OnlyifyouaresurethatD1toldthetruthininterviewandliedinhisevidenceshouldyouusehisadmission
ininterviewasevidencethatD2madethedemandfromV.
Illustration section 114 interests of justice hearsay statement of D1 admitted on application of D2
statement implicates D1 and may exonerate D2 direction jury must be sure of the statement if it is
to be evidence against D1 if the hearsay is true or may be true it supports the case of D2
TheprosecutioncaseisthatD1andD2attackedVtogether.Theyeachdenyparticipationandeachblames
theotherforVsinjuries.YouhaveheardevidencefromMrA,aneighbourofD1,whosawD1returning
home.MrAsawthatD1hadbloodonhisTshirtandaskedhimwhathehadbeendoing.D1toldMrAthat
heandD2hademergedfromtheclubtobeconfrontedbyV.Anargumentdevelopedintoafghtbetween
D1andV.D1toldMrAthathegaveVahammering.CounselforD2askedMrAwhetherD1saidanything
abouttheinvolvementofD2andMrAsaid,No.D1deniesthatanysuchconversationoccurred.Hesays
hedidnotseeMrAthatnight.
YoumayconsiderMrAsevidenceinthecasesofbothD1andD2butIneedtoexplainhowyoushould
approachit.
YoumustfrstconsidertheevidenceofMrAandD1onthequestionwhetherthisconversationtookplaceat
all.Ifyouaresureaconversationdidtakeplace,younextneedtoconsiderwhetherMrAgaveareliableand
accurateaccountofit.IfyouweretoconcludethatMrAdidhisbestaccuratelytorecalltheconversation,
thatdoesnotofitselfdisposeofthepossibilityofmistake.MrAdidnotmakeanoteoftheconversationand
hedidnotreportittothepolice.TwoweeksaftertheincidentpoliceoffcerswereinterviewingMrAabout
anothermatterentirely.Hementionedtheincidentinvolvinghisneighbourand,forthefrsttime,gavean
accountoftheconversationwhichherepeatedinawitnessstatementmadethatday.BeforeyoutreatMr
AsevidenceassupportingtheprosecutioncasethatD1wasinvolvedintheattackonV,youmustbesure
thatinitsessentialsMrAhascorrectlyrecalledit.
D2reliesonthesameconversation.Hiscaseisthatalthoughhewaspresenthedidnottakepartinthe
assaultonV.ItissaidonD2sbehalfthatD1hadnothingtogainbyneglectingtomentionD2toMrAifthe
truthwasthatD2tookpart.YouareinvitedtoconcludethattheconversationdidtakeplaceandthatD1
toldMrAthetruth.
TheprosecutionsubmitthatD1wasnotmakingareluctantconfession.HewasbraggingtoMrAaboutthe
hidinghehadgivenV.Hewas,inotherwords,takingallthecreditforviolenceofwhichD1wasproudwhen
thetruthwasitwasacowardlyattackbytwomenuponone.ForthisreasonyoushouldtreatD1saccount
asreliableonlywhenheismakinganadmissionagainsthisowninterestandnotasanysupportforD2s
casethathedidnottakepart.
2S7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
WhenyouareconsideringD2scase,youshouldexaminethesecompetingsubmissions.Ifyouaresurethat
theprosecutionsubmissionisright,D1saccounttoMrAmayprovidenosupportforD2scase.If,onthe
otherhand,youconcludethatD1didgiveormayhavegiventoMrAaliteraldescriptionofwhatoccurred,
thefactthatheomittedanyreferencetoinvolvementbyD2wouldbeasignifcantfactorinsupportofD2s
denialofinvolvement.Theweightyouattachtoitisamatterforyoutodecide.
Sources
Archbold15-388/389,15-353a/355,11-3;BlackstoneF17.50,F6.35,F16.20,F17-19;HearsayEvidencein
CriminalProceedings,2008,ProfessorJohnSpencer
2S8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Defendants Failure to Mention Facts when Questioned or Charged
Introduction
The statutory inferences
1. Section34(1)and(2)CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct1994
459
providethatifthedefendantis
questionedundercautionorchargedwithanoffence,andhefailstomentionafactlaterreliedoninhis
defenceattrialwhich,inthecircumstancesthenprevailing,hecouldreasonablyhavebeenexpected
tomention,thejury,indeterminingwhetherthedefendantisguiltyoftheoffencecharged,maydraw
suchinferencesfromthefailureasappearproper.Theobjectofsection34istodeterlatefabricationof
defencesandtoencourageearlydisclosureofgenuinedefences.
2. Bysection34(2A)
460
noinferencemaybedrawnunlessthedefendantwasgiventheopportunityto
consultasolicitorbeforebeingquestionedorcharged.
The defendants failure to mention facts
3. Thestatutoryrighttodrawinferencesisaimedatthefailuretomentionfactsonwhichrelianceisplaced
attrial,notmeresilence.
461
Ifapreparedstatementissubmittedbyorbehalfofthedefendantinlieuof
answerstoquestionsposedininterview,noinferenceisavailableunlessthedefendantlaterrelieson
factswhichdonotappearinthepreparedstatement.
462
Wherethecriticismisthatthedefendanthas
variedhisaccountbetweenhisstatement(orinterview)andhisevidence,therightapproachmaybeto
consideraliesdirectionratheradirectionundersection34.
463
Factsmayberelieduponnotwithstanding
thedefendanthasnotassertedtheminevidence.Apositivecaseputincross-examinationmaybe
suffcient.
464
Anadmissionbythedefendantduringhisevidenceofafactreliedonbytheprosecution
doesnotwithoutmoreconstitutereliancebythedefendant.
465
Afailuretomentionafactwhichis
admittedlytruecannotfoundanadverseinferencesincetheinferencecontemplatedbysection34isthat
thedisputedfactisnottrue.
466
Which he could reasonably have been expected to mention
4. Thequestionwhetherthedefendant,inthecircumstancesprevailingatthetime,couldreasonablyhave
beenexpectedtomentiontherelevantfactmaydependuponavarietyoffactorswhich,usually,should
beleftforthejurytodetermine.InArgent
467
LordBinghamCJidentifedthefollowingfactors:
The time referred to is the time of questioning, and account must be taken of all the relevant
circumstances existing at that time. The courts should not construe the expression in the
circumstances restrictively: matters such as time of day, the defendants age, experience, mental
Footnotes
459
ForthefulltextseeArchbold15-414;BlackstoneF19.4
460
AddedbytheYouthJusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999,section58,tobringcompliancewithMurrayv.UK[1996]22EHRR29
461
Brizzalari[2004]EWCACrim310;Argent[1997]2CrAppR27at32;Tv.DPP[2007]EWHC1793(Admin)at20and26
462
Knight[2004]1WLR340,[2004]1CrAppR9,[2003]EWCACrim1977
463
Turner[2003]EWCACrim3108
464
Webber[2004]1WLR404(HL),[2004]1CrAppR40,[2004]UKHL1
465
Betts[2001]2CrAppR16(page257),[2001]EWCACrim224,at33;c.f.Daly[2002]2CrAppR201,[2001]EWCACrim2643
466
Webber(supra)at28
467
Supraatpage32.
2S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
capacity, state of health, sobriety, tiredness, knowledge, personality and legal advice are all part of the
relevant circumstances; and those are only examples of things which may be relevant. When reference
ismadetotheaccusedattentionisdirectednottosomehypothetical,reasonableaccusedofordinary
phlegm and fortitude but to the actual accused with such qualities, apprehensions, knowledge and
adviceasheisshowntohavehadatthetime.Itisforthejurytodecidewhetherthefact(orfacts)which
the defendant has relied on in his defence in the criminal trial, but which he had not mentioned when
questionedundercautionbeforechargebytheconstableinvestigatingtheallegedoffenceforwhichthe
defendantisbeingtried,is(orare)afact(orfacts)whichinthecircumstancesastheyactuallyexistedthe
actualdefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomention.
Likesomanyotherquestionsincriminaltrialsthisisaquestiontoberesolvedbythejuryintheexercise
oftheircollectivecommonsense,experienceandunderstandingofhumannature.Sometimestheymay
concludethatitwasreasonableforthedefendanttohaveheldhispeaceforahostofreasons,suchasthat
hewastired,ill,frightened,drunk,drugged,unabletounderstandwhatwasgoingon,suspiciousofthe
police,afraidthathisanswerwouldnotbefairlyrecorded,worriedatcommittinghimselfwithoutlegal
advice,actingonlegaladvice,orsomeotherreasonacceptedbythejury.
Inothercasesthejurymayconclude,afterhearingallthatthedefendantandhiswitnessesmayhaveto
sayaboutthereasonsforfailingtomentionthefactorfactsinissue,thathecouldreasonablyhavebeen
expectedtodoso.Thisisanissueonwhichthejudgemay,andusuallyshould,giveappropriatedirections.
Butheshouldordinarilyleavetheissuetothejurytodecide.Onlyrarelywoulditberightforthejudgeto
directthejurythattheyshould,orshouldnot,drawtheappropriateinference.
Legal advice and privilege
5. Defendantswhoremainsilentinthefaceofquestioningoftengiveastheirreasonadvicefromasolicitor.
Likeanyother,thisisareasonwhichthejuryisentitledtoexamine.Conversationsbetweenthesuspect
andhissolicitoraresubjecttolegalprofessionalprivilegeandthedefendantisnotboundtowaivethat
privilege.Ifitisnotwaivedtherightmustberespected.
468
Theprivilegewillbewaivedifthedefendantor
hissolicitorgivesevidenceofthereasonfortheadvice.
469
6. Thequestionwhetherthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthefactnowrelied
onmayultimatelydependuponthejurysdecisionwhethertorejectlegaladviceasthetruereasonfor
hisfailuretomentionit.
470
Thedefendantmaygenuinelyhavebelievedinhisentitlementtorelyonhis
solicitorsadvice,butifthejuryconcludethatthefailuretomentionthedisputedfactswasnevertheless
unreasonable,theymayinferthathistruereasonwastheabsenceofanaccounttogive,ornonethat
wouldstanduptoscrutiny.InBeckles
471
theCourtofAppealapprovedtheapproachtothiseffecttaken
bythecourtinBettsandHoare
472
.AsAuldLJsaidinHoare
473
:
Itisnotthepurposeofsection34toexcludeajuryfromdrawinganadverseinferenceagainstadefendant
becausehegenuinelyorreasonablybelievesthat,regardlessofhisguiltorinnocence,heisentitledtotake
advantageofthatadvicetoimpedetheprosecutioncaseagainsthim.Insuchacasetheadvicebutbecause
Footnotes
468
Beckles[2005]1WLR2829,[2005]1CrAppR23,[2004]EWCACrim2766at43
469
Bowden[1999]2CrAppR176;Loizou[2006]EWCACrim1719at84
470
Betts(supra)at53;Webber(supra)at27
471
Supraat44-45
472
[2005]1CrAppR355,[2004]EWCA784
473
At54-55
2o0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
hehadnoornosatisfactoryexplanationtogive.Forthispurpose,butonlyforthispurpose,section34inits
provisionforthedrawingofanadverseinference,qualifesadefendantsrighttosilence.However,itisstill
fortheprosecutiontoproveitscase,section38(3)ofthe1994Actensuresthatafndingofacasetoanswer
oraconvictionshallnotbebasedsolelyonsuchaninference.
ThereasoningofMauriceKayLJinBettsandAuldLJinHoarewasendorsedbyLordWoolfCJinBecklesin
slightlydifferentterms
474
:
Inourjudgment,inacasewhereasolicitorsadviceisrelieduponbythedefendant,theultimatequestion
forthejuryremainsundersection34whetherthefactsreliedonatthetrialwerefactswhichthedefendant
couldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionatinterview.Iftheywerenot,thatistheendofthematter.
Ifthejuryconsiderthatthedefendantgenuinelyreliedontheadvice,thatisnotnecessarilytheendofthe
matter.Itmaystillnothavebeenreasonableforhimtorelyontheadvice,ortheadvicemaynothavebeen
thetrueexplanationforhissilence.InBetts&Hall,LordJusticeKaywasparticularlyconcerned[atparagraph
54]withwhetherornottheadvicewastrulythereasonfornotmentioningthefacts.Inthesameparagraphhe
alsosaysAperson,whoisanxiousnottoanswerquestionsbecausehehasnoornoadequateexplanationtooffer,
gainsnoprotectionfromhislawyersadvicebecausethatadviceisnomorethanaconvenientwayofdisguising
histruemotivationfornotmentioningfacts.If,inthelastsituation,itispossibletosaythatthedefendant
genuinelyactedupontheadvice,thefactthathedidsobecauseitsuitedhispurposemaymeanhewasnot
actingreasonablyinnotmentioningthefacts.Hisreasonablenessinnotmentioningthefactsremainsto
bedeterminedbythejury.Iftheyconcludehewasactingunreasonablytheycandrawanadverseinference
fromthefailuretomentionthefacts.
The fairness of the trial
7. TheabilityofthejurytodrawaninferenceofguiltfromthedefendantsfailuredoesnotinfringeArticle6
fairness.Theultimatequestioniswhethertheinferencecouldfairlybedrawninthecircumstances.The
trialjudgeisrequiredtoemphasisethedefendantsrighttosilenceandtoensurethatthejuryunderstand
thatitcouldonlydrawanadverseinferenceifsatisfedthattheapplicantssilenceatthepoliceinterview
couldonlysensiblybeattributedtotheirhavingnoanswerornonethatwouldstanduptocross-
examination.
475
8. InMurrayv.UK
476
andBecklesv.UKtheCourtemphasisedthataconvictionbasedwhollyormainlyon
theadverseinferenceinfringedthedefendantsrighttosilence.Section38(3)ofthe1994Actprohibits
convictionbasedsolelyuponanadverseinference.InChenia
477
theCourtofAppealadvisedthattrial
judgesshouldfollowthethenJSBslatestspecimendirection(2001)sinceitseemedtohaveacquiredthe
approvaloftheECtHRinBecklesv.UK.Thatdirectionincludedthewords,Ifyoudodrawthatconclusion,
youmustnotconvicthimwhollyormainlyonthestrengthofit.
478
Footnotes
474
At46
475
Condronv.UK[2001]31EHRR1at61;seealsoBecklesv.UK[2003]36EHRR162at64
476
[1996]22EHRR29
477
478
ThatadirectiontothiseffectisrequiredwasconfrmedinPetkar[2004]1CrAppR270,[2003]EWCACrim2668
2o1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
The inferences available
9. Theidentifcationoftheinferencesavailablewillbegovernedbythedevelopmentoftheevidenceinthe
case.Itshouldbefacedbythepartiesduringthecourseoftheevidence,andrequiresdiscussionwiththe
advocatesbeforespeeches.Possibleinferencesorconclusionswillincludethefollowing:
(1) Thefactnowreliedonistruebutthedefendant,forreasonsofhisown,chosenottorevealit;
(2) Thefactnowreliedonisirrelevant;
(3) Thefactnowreliedonisofmorerecentinvention;
(4) Thedefendantspresentanswertotheprosecutioncaseisfabricated;
(5) Thedefendantisguilty.
10. Theobviousinferencefromfailuretomentionafactisthatthefactisnottrue.Rejectionofthefact
whichthedefendantfailedtomentionmay,ormaynot,justifyafurtheradverseinference.Ifthefact
nowreliedonis,ineffect,thedefendantsdefencetothecharge,hisfailuretomentionitmayundermine
hiswholedefenceasarecentinvention,putforwardonlyafterthedefendanthadtheopportunityto
tailorhisaccounttotheprosecutionevidence.Alternatively,thefactnowreliedonmaybeperipheral
orsecondaryorirrelevant,thefalsityofwhichwouldnotnecessarilyunderminethedefence.The
appropriateinferencemaybethatthefactwasinventedtoimprovethedefence,leavingopenthe
questionwhetherthedefenceistrueorfalse.Finally,thejurymaybesurethatthedefendantcould
reasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthefactbutnotsurethatanyadverseinferenceshouldbe
drawn,evenaninferencethatthefactisfalse.Itfollowsthatcaremustbetakentoensurethatthejury
understandstherangeofpermissibleinferencesand,ifnecessary,thattheinferencetheymaydrawmay
beofnoassistanceoroflimitedassistanceinjudgingthedefendantsguilt.
The Mountford problem
11. Particulardiffcultiesmayarisewhenitisarguedonbehalfofthedefendantthatthejurycannot
determinethereasonforthedefendantsfailuretomentionhisdefencewithoutfrstdecidingwhether
thedefenceistrue.InMountford
479
twoaccusedwerechargedwithpossessionofthecontrolleddrug,
heroin,withintenttosupply.PoliceoffcersenteredafatandfoundWilliamsandMountford.Mthrew
apackageoutofthewindow.Itwasfoundtocontain4.25gheroinat30%purity.Mhad70incashin
hispossession.Therewasevidencethatheroinwasdealtin10wraps.Thepolicefoundscalesinactive
use.Wpleadedguiltytothelesseroffenceofallowinghispremisestobeusedforthesupplyofdrugs
andgaveevidencefortheprosecutionagainstM.WsaidinevidencethatMwasstayingathisfatand
againsthiswisheswasdealingheroin.Madvancedthedefencethat,onthecontrary,thedrugbelonged
toWwhowasadealer.HewasnotstayingatthefatbuthadvisitedWtomakeapurchaseofheroin.
Wheninterviewed,M,onadvice,madenocommenttotheincriminatingcircumstancesputtohimin
interview.MsexplanationforhissilencewasthathehadnotwishedtoputblameonWwhowashis
supplier,butifhehadknownthatWwasimplicatinghimthatwouldhavemadeabigdifference.Inhis
directionstothejurythetrialjudgesaid:
Thedefendantwaslegallyrepresented,thedefendantknewthattheprosecutioncasewasthathewas
inpossessionofheroinwithintenttosellitforproftyethesaidnothingwheninterviewedbythepolice.
Thatofcoursewashisright,butthedefendantaspartofhisdefencehasrelieduponthefactthatitwas
Footnotes
479
[1999]CrimLR575,21December1998
2o2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
WilliamswhowasinpossessionoftheheroinanditwasWilliamsnotthedefendantwhowasdealing
in heroin and intending to sell it ... the prosecution case is that Mountford did not mention that fact
whenhewasquestionedundercaution...theprosecutioncaseisthatinthecircumstanceswhenhewas
questionedhecouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthat...youmustdecidewhetherinthe
circumstanceswhichexistedatthetimeitwasafactwhichhecouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedto
mention.
ThedefendantsexplanationinevidencewasthathedidnotwanttoputtheblameontoWilliamsbuthad
heknownWilliamshadblamedhiminhispoliceinterview....he,Mountford,wouldhavehadadifferent
viewaboutmakingnocomment.....Idecidedtosaynothing.IdidntsayanythingtothepoliceasI
didntwanttolandWilliamsintrouble.
NowthelawisthatyoumaydrawsuchinferencesasappearproperfromMountfordsfailuretomention
wheninterviewedafacthelaterreliedonincourt.Youdonothavetoholditagainsthim.Itisforyouto
decidewhetheritispropertodoso.Failuretomentionsuchafactatthattimecannotonitsownprove
guilt,butdependingonthecircumstances,youmayholdthatfailureagainsthimwhendecidingwhether
heisguilty,thatistotakeitintoaccountassomeadditionalsupportfortheprosecutioncase.Itisforyou
todecidewhetheritisfairtodosointhelightofthedefendantsevidence.
TheCourtheldonappealthatthejurycouldnotrejectMsexplanationforhissilenceininterviewwithout
alsorejectingthedefenceitself.Therewasthusanelementofcircularityintheapplicationofsection34.
OnverysimilarfactstheCourt(HenryLJalsopresiding)cametothesameconclusioninGill
480
.
12. However,inHearneandColeman
481
,acaseonverydifferentfacts,theappellantattemptedtoextract
aprinciplefromMountfordthatwherethereasonforsilencelayinthetruthorfalsityofthedefence
itselfnosection34inferenceshouldbedrawnfromsilence.Thecourt(MantellLJpresiding)rejected
thispropositionsincetoupholditwoulddriveacoachandhorsesthroughthestatutorypurpose.The
decisionshould,inthecourtsview,beconfnedtoMountfordssingularfacts.Thepointwasraisedagain
inGowland-Wynn
482
.LordWoolfCJsaid:
WearequitesatisfedthatthecommentsofMantellL.J.[inHearneandColeman]arerightinsofarasthey
suggestthattofollowtheapproachwhichwasadoptedbythisCourtintheothertwocases[Mountford
andGill]hastheeffectofemasculatinganddefeatingtheverypurposeofsection34.Particularlywhere
adefendantdoesnotcomment,whenhecouldbeexpectedtocommentaboutsomethingwhichgoes
righttotheheartofhisdefence,itseemstousthatsection34hasthelargestandmostsignifcantpartto
play.InthosecircumstancesweconsiderthatinfutureMountfordandGillwhichendorsedit,shouldbe
consignedtooblivionandnotrelieduponbycourts.Itmaybethattheycouldbeconfnedtotheirspecial
facts,butwefnddiffcultyinidentifyinghowthosespecialfactscouldberecognised.Weconsiderthat
judgesandjurieswillbecausedunduediffcultyifinthefutureanyattentionispaidtothoseauthorities.
The important matter to bear in mind with regard to section 34 is the fact that the burden of proof
remainsupontheCrownthroughout.
Footnotes
480
[2001]1CrAppR160
481
[2000]6ArchboldNews2
482
2o3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
13. MountfordreceivedfurthercriticismfromLordBinghaminWebber
483
:
Thejuryhadtodecidewhethertheappellantwasinpossessionofthedrugwithintenttosupply.Had
theyconcludedthatonlyoneofthetwomenwasormightbethesupplierandthatthatonewasormight
havebeenWilliams,thatwouldhavedefeatedtheprosecution.But,ifWilliamswasthesupplier,andthe
jurywasnotimpressedbytheappellantsexplanationfornotnaminghim,itwasopentothejuryto
regardtheappellantsfailuretomentionthisfactasapointertowardstheuntruthofthatexplanation,
thusstrengtheningtheprosecutioncaseandweakeninghisown.Section34applied,andthedirection
wasrightlygiven.
14. TheissueraisedinMountfordandGillshouldbetreatedassettled,butnotbeforeithadgeneratedsome
interestingacademicdiscussion.
484
The trial judges solution to the Mountford problem

15. Itissuggestedthatthetrialjudgesdilemmaissolvedbyanadherencetothestatutorywords.The
reasonablenessofthefailuretomentionfactsistobedistinguishedfromthetruthofthefactsthe
defendantfailedtomention.Thestatutorywordsdonotrequirethejurytomakeadecisionaboutthe
truthfulnessofthefactreliedonbeforeconsideringwhetherthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeen
expectedtomentionit.Onthecontrary,thejurystaskistoexamine,frst,thequestionwhetherthe
failuretomentionthefactwasreasonable;second,andifnot,whetherthatfailuresupportsaninference
thatthefactisuntrue.InMountfordthequestionforthejurywaswhetherMcouldreasonablyhavebeen
expectedtomentionthatWwashissupplier.Thereweretwopossibleconclusions:
McouldnotreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthatWwashissupplierbecauseinreal
lifeitwouldhavebeenunreasonabletoexpectausertoidentifyhissupplier;or
McouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthatWwashissupplier,becauseitwould
havebeenunreasonablenottodiscloseacompletedefenceasearlyaspossible.
16. Inthefrstevent,noinferencewouldhavebeenavailabletothejurybecausetheyhaddecidedthatthe
statutorytesthadnotbeenmet.Inthesecondevent,thejurywouldhavetodecidewhatinferencemay
beproper.IntheMountfordcircumstancesthejurymight,butnotnecessarilywould,concludethatthey
couldnotsafelydrawanadverseinferencebecauseitiscommonknowledgethat,whetherreasonableor
not,adruguserwillprotecthisdealer.Inotherwords,theunreasonablenessofthedefendantssilence
maysurrendernocluetothetruthorfalsityofhisdefence.
17. IffacedwiththeMountforddilemmathetrialjudgeshouldleavethesection34decisiontothejury.He
willneedtoexplainthatthejurymustfrstdecidewhetherthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeen
expectedtomentionthefactonwhichhenowreliesand,secondandifso,what,ifany,inferencesare
availablefromhisfailuretodoso.ThefactsofMountfordasinterpretedbytheCourtofAppealillustrate
thescopeforthepossibilitythatajurymaybequitesurethedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeen
expectedtomentionhisdefence,butnotsurethattheyshouldinferthatthefailuretomentionitwas
Footnotes
483
Supraat26
484
See,forexample,ProfessorRoderickMundaysarticleArchboldNews2002,InferencesandExplanations
2o4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
motivatedbyitsuntruthfulness.Itwillberecalled,however,thatMrMountfordwasconvictedby
thejury.Thetrialjudgesresponsibilityistoensurethatthejuryisproperlyguided.Therewillberare
circumstancesinwhich,althoughsection34applies,thejudgemayberequiredtowarnthejuryagainst
drawinganyinference.
485
18. Inferences(3),(4)and(5),atparagraph9above,arenotnecessarilysynonymous.Thedefencetoa
chargeofassaultmaybealibi,raisedforthefrsttimeinthedefencestatement,afteranocomment
interview,andsupportedbyevidenceattrial.Thejurymaybesurethatthealibidefenceshouldhave
beenrevealedduringinterviewundercautionand,forthatandotherreasons,rejectit.If,however,the
evidencefortheprosecutionrevealsthepossibilitythatthedefendantactedinselfdefence,inference(5)
isnotaninevitableconsequenceoftherejectionofthedefendantsalibidefence.Similarly,inacaseof
murder,thedefendantssilencemaypermittheinferencethatheinfictedinjuriesbutnotnecessarilythat
hedidsowithintentorwithoutprovocation.Suchcasesreinforcetheneedforthetrialjudgetoassistthe
jurywiththepossibleinferences.
Directions
BoththeCourtofAppealandtheHouseofLordshaveemphasisedtheneedfordiscussionbetweenthetrial
judgeandtheadvocatesbeforeframingdirectionsonthissubjecttothejury.
InPetkar,
486
RixLJsummarisedtheeffectofauthoritybothdomesticandEuropean,asitwasrefectedinthe
JSBsspecimendirectioncurrentin2003.Directionstothejuryshouldincludethefollowing:
1. Thefactswhichtheaccusedfailedtomentionbutwhicharereliedoninhisdefenceshouldbe
identifed.
2. Theinferences(orconclusions,astheyarecalledinthespecimendirection)whichitissuggested
mightbedrawnfromfailuretomentionsuchfactsshouldbeidentifed,totheextentthattheymay
gobeyondthestandardinferenceoflatefabrication.
3. Thejuryshouldbetoldthat,ifaninferenceisdrawn,theyshouldnotconvictwhollyormainlyonthe
strengthofit.
4. Thejuryshouldbetoldthataninferenceshouldbedrawnonlyifyouthinkitisafairandproper
conclusion.
5. Aninference[ofguilt]shouldbedrawnonlyiftheonlysensibleexplanationforhisfailureisthathe
hadnoanswerornonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny.Inotherwordstheinferencecanvassedshould
onlybedrawnifthereisnoothersensibleexplanationforthefailure.
6. Aninferenceshouldonlybedrawnif,apartfromthedefendantsfailuretomentionfactslaterrelied
oninhisdefence,theprosecutioncaseissostrongthatitclearlycallsforananswerbyhim.
Footnotes
485
SeealsoEssa[2009]EWCACrim43inwhichHughesLJadvisedat17thatthetrialjudgeshouldpauseandconsiderwhethera
section34directionwouldassistonthefactsoftheparticularcase.
486
Supraat51
2oS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7. Thejuryshouldberemindedoftheevidenceonthebasisofwhichthejuryareinvitednottodraw
anyconclusionfromthedefendantssilence.(Itisonlyafterajuryhasconsideredthedefendants
explanationforhisfailurethattheycanconcludethatthereisnoothersensibleexplanationforit).
8. Aspecialdirectionshouldbegivenwheretheexplanationforsilenceofwhichevidencehasbeen
givenisthatthedefendantwasadvisedbyhissolicitortoremainsilent.
Theitalicisedwordsatpoint5exemplifytheneedtoidentifylegitimateinferencesbeforedirectingthejuryon
thestatutorytest.Itisparticularlyimportantthatthejudgesdirectionsarecraftedwithinthecontextofthe
factsofthecaseandtheevidencegiven.Itwillnotassistthejurytorepeatthewordsofthespecimenwithout
placingthemintheirspecifcfactualcontext.
SincetheJSBsspecimendirectionhasbeenconsistentlyapprovedbytheCourtofAppeal,HouseofLordsand
theECtHR,theDecember2004versionisreproducedinfullatAppendix2.
Illustration
487
defendant charged with possession class A drugs with intent to supply - found in
possession of package containing drugs failure to mention when questioned that he was purchaser
and X was supplier reason for failure legal advice and wish to protect supplier whether adverse
inference available
Thedefendantwasinterviewedundercautionaboutthesematterswithinhoursofhisarrest.Itwasput
tohimthatwhenthepoliceenteredXsfat,thereweretwomenpresent,thedefendantandX;thatthe
defendantwasseenbytwopoliceoffcerstothrowapackagefromthebackwindow;thatthepackagewas
recoveredanditscontents,whenanalysed,revealedapowderbelievedtobeheroin(wehavesincelearned
itcontained4.25grammesofpowderedheroinof30%purity);thatwhenthedefendantwassearched,he
wasfoundinpossession70incash;thatonthestreetheroinissoldin10wraps;thatthedefendantwas
stayingatXsfatandusingitasabaseforselling10wraps.Thedefendant,inanswertoeachofthese
questions,saidNocomment.(1)
488
Thedefendantnowsaysthatthepackagedidnotbelongtohimbutto
X;thathewasnotstayingwithX;thathadvisitedXtopurchaseawrapofheroinabouthalfanhourbefore
thepoliceentered;thatXthrewthepackagetothedefendantwho,instinctively,threwitoutofthewindow.
(2) Theprosecutionarguesthatiftherewasanytruthinthedefencenowputforwardthedefendantwould
havementioneditassoonashewasquestioned;thattheonlyreasonfornotmentioninghisdefencemust
havebeenthathedidnotthenhaveanyanswertogive;hewaiteduntiltheprosecutionserveditsevidence
andthenconstructedafalseaccusationagainstXinanattempttoanswerthecasehehadtomeet.
Parliamenthasprovidedthat,if,inthecircumstancesprevailingatthetime,thedefendantcouldreasonably
have been expected to mention when questioned facts on which he later relies at his trial, but chose to
remainsilent,you,thejury,maydrawanyinference(inotherwords,reachanyconclusion)fromthatsilence
whichyouthinkfairandproper.Theinferenceyouareinvitedbytheprosecutiontodrawisthatthedefence
nowputforwardbythedefendantisfalse.
Footnotes
487
AfterMountford
488
ThesearereferencestothenumberedparagraphssettingoutthePetkaradviceabove
2oo
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thefrstquestionforyoutoconsideriswhetherinthecircumstancesthedefendantcouldreasonablyhave
beenexpectedtotelltheoffcers(1)thathewastheretopurchaseheroinfromX,nottosellherointohimor
toanyoneelse.
Whatwerethecircumstancesprevailingatthetime?First,therewasthecaution.Youwillrecallthatbefore
theinterviewbeganthedefendantwastoldthatheneednotsayanything;anythinghedidsaymaybe
giveninevidence.Youshouldrememberthatitwas,indeed,hislegalrighttoremainsilent.Adefendantis
perfectlyentitledtodeclinetoanswerquestionsputtohimbythepoliceandnottorevealwhatmaybehis
defenceuntilanysubsequenttrial.Usually,youmightexpectaninnocentmantogivehisresponseassoon
aspossible.Sothedefendantwastoldthatitmightharmhisdefenceifhefailedtomentionwhenquestioned
somethingonwhichhelaterreliedincourt.Thepointofthecautionwastoinformthedefendantfullyasto
hisrightsbutalsotoexplainhowhissilencecouldcountagainsthim.
Second,youneedtoconsider (6) whetherthecasebeingputtothedefendantwassuffcientlystrongto
demandaresponsefromhim.Here,thedefendantwasseeninpossessionofthepackagecontainingheroin
andtothrowitfromthewindow.Didthedefendanthaveacompellingreasontotellthepolicestraight
awaythatthepackagewasnothisbutXs,thathewasapurchaserandnotaseller?
Third, (7) you need to consider the defendants reason for remaining silent. He told you that he saw a
solicitorprivatelybeforetheinterviewandwasadvisedthatheshouldmakenocomment.Hesaidthathe
andX,separately,sawthesamesolicitor.ThedefendantdidnotknowwhatXhadsaid.Hedidnotseek
anexplanationfromthesolicitorfortheadvicegiventohim.Hedecidedtoacceptheradvicebecausehe
assumedthesolicitorknewwhatshewastalkingabout.Thefacttheadvicewasgivenisnotdisputed.The
reasonsfortheadvicewerenotexploredinevidencebecausetheconversationwasconfdential,andyou
shouldnotspeculatewhatthesolicitorsreasonsmayhavebeen.
(8)Thefactthatthedefendanthadbeenadvisedtosaynothingisanimportantconsideration,butitisnot
necessarilyananswertotheprosecutionsargument.Asthedefendantconcedes,thechoicewhethertoput
forwardanexplanationwashistomake.Ifthedefendanthadagooddefencebutchoseonhissolicitors
advicetosaynothing,thatisonething,butiftherealreasonforhissilencewasthathehadnodefenceto
putforward,andhejustusedheradviceasaconvenientexcuseforevadingthetruth,thatisanother.
You will recall that when he was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution there was a shift in the
defendantsposition.Whenpressed,hesaid,Well,therewasanotherreason.IdidntknowwhatXwas
goingtosay.Xwasmysupplier.ThelastthingIwoulddoisgrasshimup.Thedefendantcouldnotexplain
whyhehadnotmentionedthiswhenaskedquestionsbyhisowncounsel.Itwasputtothedefendantthat
thiswasyetanotherexampleofhisopportunism,fttinghisstory,ashewentalong,tothecasehehadto
meet.Thedefendantdeniedthataccusation.
Youneedtoconsiderwhetheritwouldhavebeenreasonable,inthecircumstancesprevailingatthetime,for
thedefendanttohavementionedhisdefence.Ifyouaresureitwouldhavebeenreasonabletodoso,then
youareentitledtoconsiderwhat,ifany,conclusionitwouldbepropertoreach.
Itissubmittedonbehalfofthedefendantthatyoushouldreachnoadverseconclusionfromhissilence.It
issubmittedthatifXwasindeedthedefendantssupplierthedefendantwouldhavehadeveryreasonnot
todisclosethatfacttothepolice.Itiscommonknowledgethatforallsortsofreasonsauserofdrugsmay
notbepreparedtoidentifyhissupplier.Thisisanargumentwhichyoushouldconsiderwithcare.Inorderto
resolveityouwillfrstneedtodecidewhetherthedefendantwastellingthetruthwhenincross
2o7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
examination,forthefrsttime,heraisedthisasareasonforhissilence.Ifthedefendantwasormayhave
beentellingyouthetruthinthisrespect,thenyoumaythinkitwouldbeindeedbeunsafetoreachany
conclusionadversetothedefendantbasedmerelyuponhissilenceininterview.However,thatisadecision
foryoutomake.
(5) Having considered the defendants explanations, it is open to you to conclude that the only sensible
reasonforthedefendantssilenceisthatatthattimehehadnoanswertothequestionsputtohimor,at
least,nonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny.Ifthatisyourconclusionthenyoumayalsoconcludethatthe
defencenowputforwardisalaterinventionandfalse.Ihavesaidthattheseconclusionsareopentoyoubut
thisisadecisionforyoutomake.Youshouldonlyreachsuchconclusionsifyouaresure (4) thattheyarefair
andproper.Furthermore, (3) youshouldnotconvictjustbecauseorevenmainlybecausethedefendants
chosetomakenocomment.TheprincipalevidenceonwhichyoumustmakeyourfnaldecisionisthatofX
ontheonehandandthedefendantontheother.Rememberthattheburdenremainsontheprosecutionto
prove,sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendantisguilty.
Sources
2o8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Defendants Failure to Account for Objects, Substances and Marks
Introduction
Section36CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct1994permitsthejurytodrawaninferenceadversetothe
defendantfromthedefendantsfailureorrefusal,whenrequested,toaccountforanyobject,substanceor
mark.
489
Substanceormarkincludestheconditionofclothingorfootwear.Thesectionconcernsonlythe
refusaltoaccount.Anyadverseinferencearisingfromthefactofpossessionoftheobjectorthepresenceof
thesubstanceormarkisadditionallyavailableatcommonlaw.
Thequalifyingconditionsare
490
:
1. Thedefendantwasarrestedbyaconstable(constableincludesacustomsoffcer);
2. Therewasonhisperson,clothingorfootwear,orotherwiseinhispossession,orinaplacewherehe
wasatthetimeofhisarrest,anyobject,substanceormark;
3. Thatconstableoranotherconstableinvestigatingthecasereasonablybelievedthatthepresenceof
theobject,substanceormarkmaybeattributabletotheparticipationofthedefendantinanoffence
whichtheconstablespecifed;
4. Theconstableinformedthedefendantofhisbeliefandrequestedhimtoaccountforthepresenceof
theobject,substanceormark;
5. Theconstableinformedthedefendantinordinarylanguage,whenmakingtherequest,oftheeffect
underthesectionofafailureorrefusaltoaccountfortheobject,substanceormark
491
;
6. Iftherequestwasmadeatanauthorisedplaceofdetention,thedefendantwasallowedthe
opportunitytoconsultasolicitorbeforetherequestwasmade
492
;
7. Thedefendantfailedorrefusedtoaccountfortheobject,substanceormark.
Directions
InCompton
493
thedefendants,beinginvestigatedfordrugtraffcking,wereaskedininterviewtoaccountfor
thepresenceofheroincontaminationonalargequantityofbanknotesfoundintheirpossession.Theymade
nocommentonadvicefromasolicitor.TheCourtofAppealheldthatasuitablyadaptedsection34direction
(failuretomentionfactslaterreliedonattrial)wasrequired.BuxtonLJsaid:
37. We would wish strongly to reinforce the importance of correct directions being given in
respect of failures under both section 34 and section 36, not least because this is an area that has
attracted the concern of the ECtHR. It is perhaps more important here than in respect of some other
issuesinasumming-upthattheguidancegivenbothbythiscourtandbytheJSBiscloselymirroredin
Footnotes
489
ForthesectioninfullseeArchbold15-433;BlackstoneF19.16
490
Unlessstated,section36(1)CJPOA1994
491
Section36(4)CJPOA1994.SeealsoPACE1984CodeCparas10.10/11
492
Section36(4A)CJPOA1994
493
[2002]EWCACrim2835
2o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
what the judge says. That said, however, we have to see what basic fairness, which is what article 6 is
concernedwith,hasbeenheldtorequire.Themostcrucialpointisthatthejurymustbetoldthattheycan
onlyholdagainstthedefendantafailuretogiveanexplanationiftheyaresurethathehadnoacceptable
explanationtooffer.Itisnoticeablethat,inalloftherecentcasesdrawntoourattentionwheredirections
have been found wanting, that crucial element had or may have been omitted: see Betts & Hall at 55;
Chenia [2002] EWCA Crim 2345 at 92; and Beckles at 64. The jury must not be led into assessing the
qualityofthedecisiontoremainsilentratherthanitsgenuineness:Betts&Hallat53.Thejudgemade
neitheroftheseerrors,asthelatterpartofhisdirectiondemonstrates.
38. Further,thejudgeseparatedconsiderationofthatpointfromthejurysassessmentoftheeffectofthe
solicitorsadvice:beforethejurycoulddrawaninference,theyhadtobesureboththatthesolicitorsadvice
wasnotanadequateexplanationforthesilenceandthattherewasnoinnocentexplanation.Andhewas
justifedindrawingattentiontothefactthatanindividualhasachoicewhethertotakethesolicitorsadvice,
insosayinganticipating57oftherulingofthiscourtinBetts&Hall.Norwasanyspecifcsubmissionmade
tousastowhatmorethejudgeshouldhavesaidaboutthelegaladvice.Themoreexpansiveaccountthat
mightseemtobecalledforbyBeckleswasarequirementstatedinthecircumstancesofthatcase,wherethe
judgehadunderminedorappearedtounderminetheevidenceofthedefendantthathehadreliedonlegal
adviceatall.
39. Hadthejudgebeendirectingthejurysomefewmonthslater,hewouldnodoubthaveemployed
theformatoftheJSBdirection,suitablyadaptedtothecircumstancesoftheparticularcase.Thatcourse
hastheadvantagethatitmakesitlesslikelythatappealswillfolloworwillappearplausible.Wearehowever
satisfedthatthedirectionthatthejudgeinfactgavewassuffcienttomeetalloftheprotectiveprecautions
thathavesincethenbeenidentifedbythiscourtandbytheEctHR.Theseconvictionswerenotunsafe.
Illustration presence of glass in the defendants pocket solicitors advice to say nothing
explanation for glass given at trial
Whenthedefendantwasarrestedathishome,anhouraftertheburglary,hewassearched.Inhisright
jacketpocketthearrestingoffcerfoundseveraltinypiecesofglasswhichheplacedinanexhibitbagand
labelled.PCA,whoarrestedthedefendant,hadbeentothesceneoftheburglary.Hesawthattheburglar
hadbrokenatransomwindowtoclimbthroughthenarrowopening.Oncethedefendanthadbeenreceived
bythecustodyoffcerarrangementsweremadeforhimtoseeasolicitorwhowastoldbyPCAoftherelevant
facts.
Two hours later the defendant was interviewed under caution by DC B and PC A in the presence of the
solicitor.PCAtoldthedefendantofhisbeliefthattheglassinthedefendantspocketcamefromtheburglary
whichhadoccurredfourdoorsawayfromthedefendantshomeandaskedhimtoexplainhowtheglass
inhispocketcametobethereormighthavecometobethere.Thedefendanttoldtheoffcershehadbeen
advisedtosaynothingandtoeachquestionaskedhereplied,Nocomment.
Inevidence,thedefendanthasnowtoldyouthataboutthreeweeksbeforetheburglaryhewashelping
hismothertoclearupsomebrokenglassinheryardandsomeofitmusthavegotintohispocket.The
prosecutionsuggesttoyouthatifthisaccountistruethedefendantwouldcertainlyhavegivenitatthetime
hewasfrstaskedaboutit.Thefacthedidnotgiveitatthetimeshowsthatthedefendanthascomeup
withanexcusewhichisuntrueinalateattempttodealwithincriminatingevidence.
270
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Whatareyoutomakeofthedefendantssilenceininterview?Youmustconsiderthedefendantsexplanation
forhisrefusal.Hehad,quitecorrectly,beentoldthatitwashisrighttoremainsilentbutthatifhefailedto
provide an explanation for the glass in his pocket it might harm his defence at trial; in particular, you,
thejury,mightconcludethathehadnoexplanationtogive.Hesaysthatheacceptedlegaladvicetosay
nothing.Wehavenotheardwhytheadvicewasgiven,norhasthedefendantexplainedwhyheacceptedit,
excepttosaythatasolicitorknowswhattodo.Thedefendantdidnottellyouwhathesaidtohissolicitor
andwearenotentitledtoknowwhatwassaidbetweenthembecausetheirconversationwasconfdential.
However,thedefendantsdecisiontoacceptadvicedoesnotprecludeyoufromconsideringwhetheritwas
therealreasonforhissilence.
The defendant had a choice whether to give an explanation to the offcers or not, and he knew the
possibleconsequencesofarefusaltodoso.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantmaygenuinelyhavehad
anexplanationtogivebutdecided,onadvice,toremainsilent,youcouldnot,fromhissilence,reacha
conclusionadversetohiscase.But,ifyouaresurethattherealreasonforhissilencewasthathehadno
explanationtogive,andhewassimplyusinghissolicitorsadviceasaconvenientexcuseforsayingnothing,
youareentitledtoreachtheconclusionthathispresentexplanationisfalse.
It is a matter for you to decide whether such a conclusion is the fair and proper one to reach in the
circumstances.Itisalsoforyoutodecidewhatweightyoushouldgivetothisconclusionwhendeciding
whether the prosecution has proved its case. You should not, however, convict only because or mainly
becauseofhissilenceandyouneedtobesureoftwothings:frst,thatthemattersputtothedefendantin
interviewclearlycalledforananswerand,second,thattheonlysensibleexplanationforhissilencewasthat
hehadnoexplanationtogive,ornonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny.
Itissaidonthedefendantsbehalfthatonereasonwhythedefendantwouldhavebeenjustifedinsaying
nothing is that it might have turned out that the glass in the defendants pocket was not of the same
refractiveindexastheglassinthetransomwindow.Youshouldconsiderthisargumentwithcareandask
yourselveswhetheritmayprovideareasonwhyyoushouldnotholdthedefendantssilenceagainsthim.
However,youwillneedtoweighupthefactthatthereisnoevidencethatitfeaturedinthedefendants
thinkingatthetime.Itisthedefendantstruereasonforfailingtoaccountfortheglassfragmentswhichyou
willneedtoresolve.
Sources
271
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(6) Defendants Failure to Account for Presence at a Particular Place
Introduction
Section37CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct1994permitsthejurytodrawaninferenceadversetothe
defendantfromthedefendantsfailureorrefusaltoaccount,whenrequested,forhispresenceataplace
whereanoffencewascommitted.
494
495
:
1. Thedefendantwasarrestedbyaconstable(constableincludesacustomsoffcer);
2. Thedefendantwasfoundataplaceatoraboutthetimeanoffencewasallegedlycommitted;
3. Thatconstableoranotherconstableinvestigatingtheoffencereasonablybelievedthatthepresenceof
thedefendantatthatplaceandtimemaybeattributabletohisparticipationinthecommissionofthe
offence;
4. Theconstableinformedthedefendantofhisbeliefandrequestedhimtoaccountforhispresence;
5. Thedefendantwastoldinordinarylanguagebytheconstablemakingtherequestoftheeffectunder
thesectionofafailuretoaccountforhispresence
496
;
6. Iftherequestwasmadeatanauthorisedplaceofdetention,thedefendanthadbeenallowedan
opportunitytoconsultasolicitorbeforetherequestwasmade
497
;
7. Thedefendantfailedorrefusedtoaccountforhispresence.
Directions
Therequirementsofdirectionstothejurymirrorthoseusedforsection34(failuretomentionfactslaterrelied
on)andsection36(failuretoaccountforobjects).
Footnotes
494
Forsection37seeArchbold15-435;BlackstoneF19.16
495
Unlessstated,section37(1)CJPOA1994
496
Section37(3)CJPOA1994.SeealsoPACE1984CodeCparas10.10/11
497
Section37(3A)CJPOA1994
272
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(7) Failure of Defendant to Make Proper Disclosure of the Defence Case
Introduction
1. Theimportanceoftimelyfulflmentoftheobligationtomakestatutorydisclosurebyboththe
prosecutionandthedefenceisspelledoutbyAProtocolfortheControlandManagementofUnused
MaterialintheCrownCourtwhichappliestoalltrialsonindictmentafter20February1996.
498
The
obligationuponthedefencearisesundersections5,6A(inforce4April2005;subsection(1)(ca)
insertedbyCJIA2008
499
asfrom3November2008)and6E(inforce4April2005)CriminalProcedure
andInvestigationsAct1996,asamended,andisconfnedtotheserviceandcontentsofthedefence
statement.
500
2. Section5(5A),(5B)and(5D)(defencedisclosuredirecttoco-accused),tobeinsertedbysection33(1)
CriminalJusticeAct2003,section6B(updateddisclosurebythedefence),tobeinsertedbysection33(3)
CJA2003,section6C(notifcationofintentiontocalldefencewitnesses,tobeinsertedbysection34CJA
2003,section6D(notifcationofnamesofexpertsinstructedbydefence),tobeinsertedbysection35
CJA2003,andsections11(4),(7)and(11)(amendmentstosanctionsfordefencefailures),tobeinserted
by39CJA2003,havenotyetbeenbroughtintoforce.Anamendmenttosection11(2)(f)(ii)ofthe1996
Actcameintoforceon3November2008inrespectofthosecasestowhichCPIA1996,Part1appliesby
virtueofsection1(1)or(2).
3. Subjecttotheformalrequirementsofserviceofthecasepapers
501
,theaccusedmustgiveadefence
statementtothecourtandtheprosecutor
502
within14daysoftheprosecutorscompliance,orpurported
compliance,withthedutyofprimarydisclosureundersection3CPIA1996.Thedefencemayapplyforan
extensionbeforethedeadlineexpires.
503
4. Thecurrentrequirementsforthecontentsofadefencestatementaresetoutinsection6ACPIA1996:
(1)ForthepurposesofthisPartadefencestatementisawrittenstatement
(a)settingoutthenatureoftheaccusedsdefence,includinganyparticulardefencesonwhichhe
intendstorely,
(b)indicatingthemattersoffactonwhichhetakesissuewiththeprosecution,
(c)settingout,inthecaseofeachsuchmatter,whyhetakesissuewiththeprosecution,
(ca)settingoutparticularsofthemattersoffactonwhichheintendstorelyinhisdefence,
504
and
(d)indicatinganypointoflaw(includinganypointastotheadmissibilityofevidenceoran
abuseofprocess)whichhewishestotake,andanyauthorityonwhichheintendstorelyforthat
purpose.
Footnotes
498
ArchboldAppendixN-52;BlackstoneAppendix4,page2832
499
SeeArchbold12-57a
500
SeealsothecourtscasemanagementpowersunderCPR3.10(b)
501
Section5(1)-(4)CPIA1996
502
Section5(5)CPIA1996
503
CPIA1996(DefenceDisclosureTimeLimits)Regulations1997(SI1997No684)regs2and3
504
Sub-paragraph(ca)cameintoforceon3November2008(CriminalJusticeandImmigrationAct2008(CommencementNo.3
andTransitionalProvisionsOrder2008(SI2008No2712)
273
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2)Adefencestatementthatdisclosesanalibimustgiveparticularsofit,including
(a)thename,addressanddateofbirthofanywitnesstheaccusedbelievesisabletogive
evidenceinsupportofthealibi,orasmanyofthosedetailsasareknowntotheaccusedwhenthe
statementisgiven;
(b)anyinformationintheaccusedspossessionwhichmightbeofmaterialassistancein
identifyingorfndinganysuchwitnessinwhosecaseanyofthedetailsmentionedinparagraph
(a)arenotknowntotheaccusedwhenthestatementisgiven.
(3)Forthepurposesofthissectionevidenceinsupportofanalibiisevidencetendingtoshowthat
byreasonofthepresenceoftheaccusedataparticularplaceorinaparticularareaataparticular
timehewasnot,orwasunlikelytohavebeen,attheplacewheretheoffenceisallegedtohave
beencommittedatthetimeofitsallegedcommission.
5. Thefollowingbreachesofrequirementsonthedefenceattractthesanctionsofsection11CPIA1996:
(1) Failuretoserveadefencestatementortoservewithintime(sections5and11(2)(a)and(b));
(2) Settingoutinconsistentdefencesinthedefencestatement(section11(2)(e));
(3) Puttingforwardattrialadefencenotmentionedinthedefencestatement(section11(2)(f)(i));
(4) Relyingonanymatterwhichshouldhavebeenbutwasnotmentionedinthedefencestatement
(sections6A(1)and11(2)(f)(ii));
505
(5) Givingevidenceofalibiorcallingawitnesstogiveevidenceinsupportofanalibiwithoutgiving
noticeinthedefencestatement(sections6A(2)and11(2)(f)(iii)and(iv)).
6. Thesanctionsprovidedbysection11(5)are:
(a) thecourtoranyotherpartymaymakeanysuchcommentasappearsappropriate;
506
(b)thecourtorjurymaydrawsuchinferencesasappearproperindecidingwhethertheaccusedis
guiltyoftheoffenceconcerned.
507
7. ThesanctionsonlycomeintoplayintheCrownCourtwhenthecasehassurvivedthecloseofthe
prosecutioncase.Thereisnoprovisionequivalenttosection34(2)CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct
1994(whichpermitsthejudgetohaveregardtooutofcourtsilencewhendeterminingasubmissionof
nocase).
8. Itisofcriticalimportancetotheabilityofthejurytodrawanadverseinferencethatthedefence
statement,ifany,wasmadebythedefendant.Section6Eprovidesthatadefencestatementsubmitted
Footnotes
505
Inforce3November2008(CriminalJusticeandImmigrationAct2008(CommencementNo.3andTransitionalProvisionsOrder
2008(SI2008No2712)
506
Bysection11(6)CPIA1996ifthematternotmentionedwasapointoflaw(includingadmissibilityofevidence),commentby
anotherpartymaybemadeonlywiththeleaveofthecourt.
507
InEssa[2009]EWCACrim43achallengetothecompatibilityofsection11(5)CPIA1996withArt6ECHRwasrejectedonthe
groundthatthefairnessofquestionsputtothedefendantandcommentmadewassubjecttothecontrolofthejudgewho
wouldensurefairness.
274
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
bytheaccusedssolicitorundersections5(compulsorystatement)or6(voluntarystatement),shall,
unlessthecontraryisproved,bedeemedtohavebeengivenwiththeauthorityoftheaccused.Itseffect
istorequirethedefendanttoprovideanexplanationifheistoavoidresponsibilityfortheabsenceofa
defencestatementorforitscontents.
9. If,atapre-trialhearing,itappearstothejudgethattheaccusedhasfailedtocomplywithsection5
(includingtherequirementsofsection6A),sothatthereisapossibilitythatcommentmaybemadeor
inferencesdrawnundersection11(5)thejudgeshallwarntheaccusedaccordingly.
508
10. Inconsideringwhatdirectiontogivetothejurywhenthedefendanthasputforwardadefencewhichis
differentfromthatadvancedinthedefencestatement,thejudgemusthaveregardto(a)theextentof
thedifferences;and(b)whetherthereisjustifcationforit.
509
11. Iftheaccusedcallsanalibiwitnesswithoutgivinganyoranyadequateparticularsundersection6A(2)
thejudge,whenconsideringwhatdirectiontogivetothejury,musthaveregardtowhetherthereisany
justifcationforthefailure.
510
12. Thejudgewillneedtomakeadecisionwhether,ifadefencestatementwasserved,itshouldbeadmitted
inevidenceandacopyprovidedtothejury.Thatdecisionwillprobablydependuponwhetherthejuryis
beingaskedtoconsiderthedetailofthestatement.
Comment or Inference
13. Thefrstquestionforthetrialjudgeiswhetherheisgoingtodirectthejurythatanadverseinferenceis
available.Theonlysignifcancetothejuryofabreachofthedefendantsobligationstomakedisclosure
islikelytobethepotentialinferencethatafactonwhichthedefendantnowreliesisfalse,eitherbecause
itwas,withoutjustifcation,advancedlate,orisinconsistentwithapreviousaccountinthedefence
statement.Inpractice,therefore,thejudgewillneedtodecidewhethertoexplainthattheadverse
inferenceisavailable,or,towarnthejuryagainstdrawingit.
14. Inthestraightforwardcase,wherethedefendanthassignedthedefencestatementandheisnow
advancingadifferentcasefromthatdisclosed,therewillbelittlediffcultyinframingdirections.Where,
however,thedefendantmaintainsthathewasnotresponsiblefortheinaccuracythejudgewillneed
tomakeadecisionwhethertheissueshouldbelefttothejury,asapre-conditiontothedrawingofan
inference,ortowarnthejuryagainstdrawinganyinference.
15. Wherethedefendanthasfailedtoserveadefencestatementatall,orhasserveditverylate,theinference
theprosecutionislikelytoseekwillbesimilartothatsoughtundersection34CriminalJusticeandPublic
OrderAct1994,thatthedefendantatthematerialtimeeitherhadnotthoughtofhisdefence,orhehad
nodefencewhichwouldstanduptoexamination.
16. Thedefendantsexplanationforlatedisclosureornon-disclosuremaybedisbelieved.Itmay,butwill
notnecessarily,followthatthefactwhichthedefendantfailedtodiscloseisnottrue.Itmay,butwillnot
necessarily,followthatthedefendantisguilty.Thejudgesdirectionsastolegitimateinferenceswillbe
similartothoserequiredforsection34CJPOA1994.
Footnotes
508
Section6E(2)CPIA1996
509
Section11(8)CPIA1996
510
Section11(9)CPIA1996
27S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Thejudgeshoulddiscusswiththeadvocates,beforespeeches,anycommentthepartiesproposetomakeand
thedirectionsheproposestogive.InWheeler
511
thedefendantmaintainedattrialthathedidnotknowhewas
importingdrugs;hisdefencestatementconcededthathedid.Thiswasamistakeadmittedbyhisbysolicitors,
notexploredattrial,savebythedefendantsunsupportedassertionthatamistakehadbeenmade.Infact,
thejuryshouldhavebeenwarnednottodrawanadverseinference.TheCourtofAppealobserved
512
that
unfairnesscouldhavebeenavoidediftherehadbeentimelydiscussionbetweentheadvocatesandthejudge.
Failure to serve a defence statement or serve it in time
Considerationswillinclude:
Wasthedefendantawareofthestatutoryrequirement?
Wasthedefendantwarnedatapre-trialhearingastotheconsequencesofbreach?
Hadthedefendantgivenanaccountininterview?
Isthecasenowadvanceddifferent,inanymaterialrespect,fromthecontentsoftheinterview?
Ifadefencestatementwasservedlate,howlate?
Ifadefencestatementhasbeenservedlate,whatdifferencehasthatmadetotheprosecutionsability
toinvestigate?
Whatreasonhasbeenadvancedforthefailuretoserveadefencestatementintime?
Isthereasonadvancedtrueormayitbetrueand,ifso,doesitjustifyormitigatethebreach?
Whatinferences,intheparticularcircumstancesrevealed,maybeavailablefromthefailuretoserve
thedefencestatementintimeoratall?
Failure to disclose the defence advanced at trial or to disclose a fact or matter relied on at trial
Towhatextentisthereadifferencebetweenthedefencedisclosed(ormattersdisclosed)inthe
defencestatementandthedefenceadvanced(ormattersadvanced)attrial?
Whatreasonhasbeenadvancedforthedifferences?
Whatinferences,intheparticularcircumstancesrevealed,maybeavailablefromthechangeinthe
defendantscase?
Footnotes
511
[2001]1CrAppR10
512
At50,perPotterLJ
27o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Failure to disclose an alibi defence or particulars of alibi witnesses
Whatwastheextentofthefailuretomakedisclosure?
Whatimpacthasthefailurehadupontheprosecutionsabilitytomeetthedefencecase?
Whatreasonhasbeenadvancedforthefailure?
Whatinferences,intheparticularcircumstancesrevealed,maybeavailablefromthefailuretomake
anyorfulldisclosureofthealibi?
Althoughsection11(5)CPIA1996enablesthejurytodrawsuchinferencesasappearpropertheyshould
notbeleftwithoutassistanceastothelegitimaterangeofinferencesavailable.Thismaybeasensitive
exercise,particularlywherethereisdisagreementbetweenthedefendantandhissolicitorastoinstructions
given,orthedefendantdeclinestowaiveprivilegedespitethestatutoryassumptionthatthedefence
statementhasbeenservedwithauthorityunlessthecontraryisproved.Further,aswithrelianceonfactsat
trialnotdisclosedininterview,theembellishmentonwhichtheprosecutionreliestosupportaninferencethat
itisuntruemaynotgosofarastosupportaninferencethatthewholedefenceisfalse.
Illustration silence in interview - defence statement served just before trial explanations given by
the defendant - inferences available from both failures
Thedefendantwasaskedininterviewundercautionifhewasinthetowncentreat11pmonthedayofthe
incident;ifhewasinvolvedinanargumentwithanyone;ifheknewV;whetherVwasnowgoingoutwith
thedefendantsex-girlfriend;ifhewascarryingaknife;whetherVwaswalkingawayfromtheargument
whenthedefendantstabbedVtwiceintheside.This,ofcourse,wasinformationgiventothepolicebyV
andhisfriend,A,whohavebothnowgivenevidence.Toeachofthesequestionsthedefendantmadeno
comment.Hewaschargedwithwoundingwithintent,givenbail,andsenttotheCrownCourtfortrial.
Atalltimessincehisarrest,thedefendanthasbeenrepresentedbysolicitors.Thedefendantssolicitorswere
informedbeforethedefendantwasinterviewedofthenatureoftheevidenceagainsthim.Theywerethen
servedwiththewitnessstatementsonwhichtheprosecutionwasrelying.TheyincludedthestatementsofV
andA.
Itwasthedutyofthedefendanttoserveonthecourtandtheprosecution,by14August2009,astatement
ofhiscaseinwhatiscalledadefencestatement.Itspurposeistonotifythecourtandtheprosecutionin
goodtimewhatissueistakenwiththeprosecutionevidenceandonwhatfactsthedefendantreliesinhis
defence.Thepointisthatboththeprosecutionandthedefenceareobligedtoputtheircardsonthetable.
Neithersideisallowedtoengageintrialbyambush.Theirdutyistoassistthecourtandthewitnesses.A
defencestatementrequiresthedefendanttosayexplicitlywhathisdefencewillbeattrial.Furthermore,if
theprosecution,onreadingthedocument,realisethattheyhaveinformationwhichmayassistthedefence
theyareobligedtodiscloseit.
277
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
On21AugustthedefendantappearedatthisCrownCourtforapleaandpre-trialhearing.Asyouhave
hearditwasineffectivebecausethedefendanthadfailedtoattendappointmentswithhissolicitorswho
wantedtotakeinstructionsfromhim.Thedefendanthadnoexcusetogive.Thehearingwasadjournedfor
sevendays.Butbeforethecourtadjourned,thedefendantwaswarnedpersonallybythejudgethatifhedid
notlodgeadefencestatementwithinthenextsevendaysitwouldbeopentothejuryathistrialtoreach
aconclusionwhichwasadversetohim,includingthathehadnorealanswertothecharge.Evenafterthat
warning no defence statement was forthcoming. At the adjourned hearing on 28 August the defendant
pleaded not guilty to the charge. His advocate told the judge he still did not have complete instructions
and requested full witness orders for all witnesses except for the police offcers who interviewed him. He
thoughtthedefencemightbeselfdefencebuthewasstillnotinapositiontoserveadefencestatement.A
fullconferencewiththedefendantandcounselwasrequiredbeforethefnalpositionwaswouldbeknown.
If the position changed the court would be notifed. The trial was listed for Monday, October 26th and
thedefendantwastoldthatifhemaintainedhispleathejurywouldbetoldthattheycouldanadverse
conclusionfromhisfailuretoserveadefencestatement.
As you know, a fnal pre-hearing was held on Wednesday, 30th September and, for the frst time, the
defendantdisclosedhisdefenceinadefencestatementservedthatday.Youhaveseenit.Thedefendant
admittedthatVwaswoundedwithaknife.HesaidtheknifebelongedtoV;Vdrewtheknife;therewasa
fghtbetweenthem;astheywererollingonthefoorandthedefendantattemptedtowrestletheknifefrom
V,theknifemusthaveenteredVsbodyaccidentallyontwooccasions.Thedefendantsaidthatatalltimes
hewasactinginselfdefenceandmadenoattempttowoundV.Hehasrepeatedthisaccounttoyouin
evidence.
Ineedtoexplainhowthedefendantsilenceininterviewandhisfailureuntilthelastmomenttodisclosehis
defencemayaffectyourjudgementofthiscase.
Parliamenthasprovidedthatwhenadefendantreliesathistrialonfactswhichhecouldreasonablyhave
beenexpectedtomention,butdidnotmention,whenquestionedininterviewyou,thejury,maydrawsuch
inferences, in other words you can reach such conclusions, from his silence which you think are fair and
proper.Thesefailurescan,inotherwords,countagainstthedefendantattrial.
Parliamenthasalsoprovidedthatwherethedefendantfailstocomplywithhisobligationtodisclosehis
defenceingoodtimebeforetrial,thejurymayalsoreachanyconclusionswhichtheyconsidertobefairand
properinthecircumstances.
Whataretheinferencesorconclusionswhichyouareinvitedtoreach?Theprosecutionhassuggestedtoyou
inargumentthatiftherewasanytruthinthedefendantsclaimthatitwasVandnotthedefendantwho
wastheaggressor,andthatitwasVandnotthedefendantwhoproducedtheknife,hewouldhavesaidso
atthefrstavailableopportunityandinstructedhissolicitorstoserveadefencestatementtothateffect.The
factthatthedefencenowputforwardfrstsawthelightofdayduringtheweekbeforethetrialdemonstrates
thatitisofrecentinventionandcompletelyuntrue.
Whether you reach any adverse conclusion depends primarily upon your judgement of the reasons put
forwardbythedefendantforhisfailuretospeakearlierthanhedid.Didhehaveanyacceptablereasonfor
notmentioningthefactsonwhichhenowrelies?
278
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Letusfrstconsidertheinterviewundercaution.Thedefendantwascautionedthathedidnothavetosay
anything.Thatwasindeedso.Thedefendanthadalegalrighttoremainsilentifhechose.Hewasalso
toldthatitmayharmhisdefenceifhefailedtomentionwhenquestionedafactonwhichhelaterreliedat
trial.Youneedtoconsiderwhetherthedefendant,inthecircumstancesinwhichhefoundhimself,accused
ofdeliberatelyknifngVasVwaswalkingawayfromanargument,couldreasonablyhavebeenexpected
tomentionthat,onthecontrary,Vwastheaggressor,thathe,thedefendant,actedinselfdefence,and
thatVswoundswerenotdeliberatelyinficted.Thedefendanttoldyouhewouldhavementionedthose
thingstothepolicebutforthefactthathissolicitoradvisedhimtosaynothing.Legaladviceisanimportant
consideration. However, as the defendant acknowledged, the decision was the defendants whether to
acceptthatadviceornot.Youwillneedtodecidewhetherlegaladvicewasthetruereasonforhissilence.
Itisonethingifyouhaveagenuinedefencetoputforwardbutyoudecidenottomentionitonadvice;it
isanotherifyouhavenodefencetoputforwardanduselegaladvicetoavoidmakinganadmission.The
defendantwasaskedwhetherhewaspreparedtorevealwhathetoldhissolicitorabouttheincidentandthe
discussionwhichledtotheadvice.Hesaidhewasnot.Hewasnotobligedtorevealwhatwassaidbecause
theconversationwasprotectedbylegalconfdentiality,buttheresultisyouhavenothingbutthefactthat
thedefendantacceptedadvicetoexplainwhyhechosetoremainsilent.Ifyouaresurethattherealandonly
sensibleexplanationforthedefendantssilencewasthathehadnoanswertotheallegationsputtohim,or
nonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny,thenyouareentitledtogiveeffecttothatconclusionwhendeciding
whetherheisguiltyoftheoffencecharged.
Thedefendantwasaskedwhyhefailedtosubmitadefencestatementwhenheknewitmightcountagainst
himifhedidnot.Hesaidhethoughtthatthecomplainantwouldwithdrawhiscomplaint.Askedwhetherhe
hadanyreasontothinkthecomplaintmightbewithdrawn,hesaidhedidnot.Heagreedthathewasasked
toattendappointmentswithhissolicitorsbutfailedtodoso.Therewasnothingtopreventhimattending.
Henowthoughthehadbeenburyinghisheadinthesand.Hethenagreedthatitwasnotuntiltheday
beforehisdefencestatementwasservedthathegavetohissolicitorstheinformationneededtocompleteit.
Youwillneedtoconsiderthisexplanation.Didthedefendantallalonghaveatruedefencetoputforward
butneglectedoutoffearorpanictodoso,orisitthatthedefendanthadnotyetthoughtoutthedefencehe
isnowputtingforward?Ifyouthinkthedefendantmaysimplyhavebeenburyinghisheadinthesandthen
youshouldnotallowthisfailuretoundermineyourconsiderationofhisevidence;but,ifyouaresurethat
hisfailuretorespondcanonlybeexplainedbytheabsenceofanytruedefencethen,ofcourse,itisboundto
affectadverselyyourjudgementofhisevidence.
Itisforyoutodecidewhetherthedefendantssilenceininterviewandhisfailuretodisclosehisdefenceshould
countagainsthiminthewayIhaveexplained.Youshouldonlyreachthisconclusionifyouaresureitisfair
andpropertodoso.Youmustbesurethattheprosecutioncasewassuffcientlystrongtorequireananswer;
thatthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthefactsandmattersonwhichhenow
relies;andthattheonlysensibleexplanationforhisfailureishisrealisationthathethenhadnoanswerto
giveornonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny.Rememberthatyoumustnotconvictthedefendantunlessyou
aresurehewasnotactinginselfdefence.Youshouldnotconvictjustbecauseorevenmainlybecausethe
defendanthascometocourtlatewithhisaccount.Hisfailuretomentionselfdefenceonanyearlieroccasion
isafactorwhichyouareentitledtoconsiderwhendecidingwhohastoldthetruth.
27
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration failure to mention when questioned and failure to include in the defence statement a fact
now relied on in evidence inferences available from both failures
Whenthedefendantwasaskedquestionsonbehalfoftheprosecutionitemergedthatwellbeforetrialthere
wasserved,byhissolicitorsonhisbehalf,whatiscalledadefencestatement.Thisisadocumentwhich
thedefendantisrequiredtoserveonthecourtandprosecution,settingoutwherehetakesissuewiththe
prosecutionevidenceandthefactsonwhichhereliesinhisdefence.Thepurposeofthedefencestatement
istoensurethatbothsidescometocourtawareofthemattersindisputeandthattheprosecutioncan
besurethatithasdisclosedeverythingwhichmayberelevanttothedefence.Youhaveseenthedefence
statement.Init,headmittedusingviolenceuponV,butsaidthatthereasonhedidsowasbecauseVwas
beingaggressiveandthedefendantthoughthewasabouttobeassaulted.Inotherwords,thedefendant
wasgivingnoticethathisdefencewasselfdefence.Thetermsofthestatementwereinessencerepeating
whatthedefendanthadsaidduringhisinterviewundercaution.
Inevidence,whenbeingquestionedbyhisownadvocate,thedefendantwasasked,Whydidyoupunch
V?Thedefendantreplied,BecauseIthoughthewasgoingtostabme.HewasaskedWhatmadeyou
thinkthat?Hereplied,Hetookoutaknifeandpointeditatme.
NowthiswasthefrsttimethedefendantclaimedthatVhadaknifeandthatitwastheknifewhichcaused
himtoreactashedid.InhisinterviewandinhisdefencestatementthedefendanthadsaidthatVmade
amovementtowardshimwhichcausedhimtothinkhewasabouttobeassaulted.Theprosecutionhas
suggestedtoyouinargumentthat,iftherewasanytruthintheassertionthatVthreatenedthedefendant
withaknife,hewouldhavesaidsowhenhewasinterviewedandhewouldcertainlyhavementioneditin
hisdefencestatement.
Ineedtoexplaintoyouhowthelateemergenceofthisevidencemayaffectyourjudgmentofthedefendants
case.
First,considertheinterview.Thedefendantwastoldheneednotsayanything.Thatindeedwashislegal
right,butinthiscasethedefendantelectedtogiveanaccountwhichincludedaclaimthatheactedinself
defence.Hewasalsotoldthatitmayharmhisdefenceifhefailedtomentionwhenquestionedsomething
onwhichhelaterreliedattrial,andthatwhateverhedidsaymaybeusedinevidence.Youwillneedto
considerthequestionwhetherthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionininterview
thefactthathethoughthewasabouttobeattackedwithaknife.Givenwhatthedefendantwastellingthe
police,wastheexistenceofaknifearelevantfact?Wasthereanysensiblereasonfornotmentioningit?The
defendantwasaskedaboutthisonbehalfoftheprosecution.Hisfrstresponsewasthathewasnotasked
thequestionwhichmighthaveelicitedtheanswer.Itwaspointedouttohimthatafterheclaimedhewas
frightenedofV,hehadbeenasked,Whatwereyouafraidof?Hereplied,Hissize.Thedefendanttold
youthathewasinabitofapanicintheinterviewandhemusthaveforgottentomentiontheknife.You
willthereforeneedtoreachadecisionwhatwastherealreasonwhytheknifewasnotmentioned.Wasit
confusionorpanicorforgetfulness?Orwasitbecausethedefendanthadnotyetthoughttoembellishhis
accountbyinventingtheknife?
280
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Second, consider the defence statement. The defendant accepted that before the defence statement was
prepared he had an interview with his solicitor at his offce. They went through the prosecution witness
statements. The defendant made comments. The solicitor dictated a witness statement as they went
along. From the witness statement the solicitor drafted a defence statement which he then read over to
thedefendant,whoapprovedit.Thedefendantsignedthedraftandthesolicitorwaslefttosignthefnal
version.Thedefendanttoldyouthathethoughthehadmentionedtheknifetohissolicitor.Counselforthe
prosecutionthencalledfortheproductionofthedraft.Itwasproducedfromthesolicitorsfleincourt.The
defendantcomparedthetwoandconcededthattheywereidenticalapartforthecorrectionofgrammar
andtheadditionofatitleandsomeparagraphnumbers.Askedtoexplain,thedefendantsaidhemust
bemistakenbuthehadalwaysintendedtomentiontheknife.Thedefendantagreedthathefeltunderno
particularpressureathissolicitorsoffce.Heknewthepurposeofhiswitnessstatementandthedefence
statementbecausethesolicitorexplained.Counselforthedefendantacknowledgedthatthedefendants
witnessstatementwasincourtbutdidnotsuggestthatitstermswereinthisrespectanydifferentfromthe
defencestatement.Thedefendantgaveevidencethathehadaconferencewithcounselonthemorning
ofthetrialandhethengavetheaccountwhichhehasgivenyou.Whatwasthereasonwhytheknifewas
notmentionedinthedefencestatement?Whatwasitsimportance?Couldthedefendanthaveforgottento
mentionitorwasitnotmentionedbecausethedefendanthadnotyetthoughtofit?
You should only reach a conclusion that the defence put forward is a recent invention if you are sure it
isthefairandproperthingtodo.Itcertainlywouldnotbefairandpropertodosounlessyouweresure
thattheprosecutioncasecalledforananswerfromthedefendant;that,ifitwastrueVhadaknife,the
defendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionitlongbeforethetrial;andthattheonlysensible
explanationforhisfailureisthatitisnottrue.
Finally,whataretheinferencesorconclusionswhichareavailabletoyou?Plainly,thefrstandmostobvious
isthattheclaiminevidencebythedefendantthatVwasinpossessionofandthreateningthedefendant
withaknifeisfalse.But,doesthatconclusioncauseyoutoreachthefurtherconclusionthatthedefendant
didnothonestlybelievethatheneededtodefendhimself?YouwillrecallthatafterVandAhadbeencross-
examined,andtheyhaddeniedthatVwasinpossessionofaknife,counselfortheprosecutionaskedeachof
theminre-examinationwhetherVhadmadeanyaggressivemovementtowardsthedefendant.Theyboth
saidhehadnot.Thedefendanthasabandonedwhathesaidininterviewwhich,thewitnessessay,is,inany
event,untrue.If,therefore,youconcludethatVhadnoknife,theonlyevidencelefttosupportaclaimthat
thedefendanthadreasontodefendhimselfcomesfromtheinterviewwhichisabandoned.That,however,is
yourdecision.Asyouknow,theprosecutionmustmakeyousureonalltheevidence,includingwhathesaid
ininterview,thatthedefendantwasnotactinginselfdefence.
Illustration failure to give particulars of alibi and alibi witnesses inferences available possibility
that alibi is true but particulars are untrue
Duringhisinterviewundercautionon14July2009thedefendanttoldtheoffcersthathewaselsewhere
whentheoffencetookplace.Askedwherehewas,thedefendantsaidhecouldnotrecallwithanycertainty,
buthethoughthewouldhavebeeneitherwithhisgirlfriendathomeorwithamatehavingadrink.The
defendantgavetothecourtandtheprosecutionwrittennoticeofhisalibi
281
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
inadefencestatement.
513
Initthedefendantrepeatedwhathehadsaidininterview.Hedidnot,however,
nameanypersonwhomightbeabletogiveevidenceinsupportofthatalibi,eitherhisgirlfriendorany
friendwithwhomhemayhavebeendrinking.Thismatterwasraisedatapre-trialhearing,atwhichthe
defendantwaspresent,on25September2009.Thejudgeaskedthedefendantsadvocatewhytherewas
nomentionofanalibiwitnessinthestatement.Hewasinformedthatthedefendantwasstillunabletogive
instructionswhether,onthenightoftheincident,hewasathomeoroutdrinking.Thejudgesaidthis:
Itmaybethatthedefendantisunabletorecallwherehewasonthenightof6June2009inwhichcase
thenoticeofalibihehasprovidedcannotbeimproved.If,however,heproposestorelyontheevidence
ofanywitnessinsupportofhisalibi,hemustgiveparticularsofthatwitnessorthosewitnesses.Ifthe
defendantseekstocallevidenceinsupportofhisalibiattrialwithouthavinggivennoticeasrequired
underthe1996Actthejurymayconsiderdrawinganinferenceadversetohiscase.Theconclusionthe
jurymaybeinvitedtoreachisthattheevidenceofalibiisnottrue.
Thedefendantwasaskedwhetherheunderstoodandherepliedthathedid.
The court heard nothing more from the defence until 10 weeks later, that is 15 days ago. A letter was
received from the defendants solicitors notifying the court and the prosecution that the defendant now
proposedtorelyonanalibithathewasawaycampingandfshingfortheweekendof6and7June2009
withhisfriendX,whosedetailsweregivenintheletter.Theprosecutionsubmitsthatifthisalibiistruethere
isnogoodreasonwhythedefendantshouldnothavebeenabletorememberandgiveparticularsofitwhen
arrested.Thedefendantsfailure,until2weeksago,toprovideparticularsofhisalibiisevidencethatithas
beenconcoctedtogetherwithXtoprovidehimwithaspeciousanswertotheprosecutioncase.
Thequestionthereforeariseswhetheryoushouldconsiderdrawinganinferenceadversetothedefendants
case.
Youshouldfrstexaminethereasongivenbythedefendantforthelatenessoftheseparticularsofalibi.
Hetoldyouthathehadmadeamistakeinhisrecollection.Hisgirlfriendtoldhimshecouldnotremember
whattheyweredoing.HerealisedhehadgothisweekendsmixedupwhenhewaschattingwithXinthe
pubthreeweeksago.Xremindedhimthattheyhadbeenfshingtogetherthatweekend.X,whenhegave
evidence,saidsomethingdifferent.Hetoldyouthatthedefendanttextedhimtomeethiminthepubabout
hisforthcomingcourtappearance.AtthepubitwasthedefendantwhoaskedwhetherXrememberedthe
fshingtrip.Hesaidhedid.Xwenttothedefendantssolicitortosupportthealibi.
Footnotes
513
HemaynothavebeenrequiredtogivenoticeofalibiatthisstageseeJohnson[1995]2CrAppR1inwhichtheCourtofAppeal
heldthatthenoticewasrequiredonlyifthedefendantwasrelyingupontheassertionthathewasinaparticularplaceother
thanthesceneoftheallegedcrime.Section11(8)CriminalJusticeAct1967wasinthesametermsassection6A(3)CPIA1996.
GlidewellLJsaid:
Inourjudgment,evidence,whetherfromadefendanthimselforfromanyotherperson,whichgoesnofurtherthanthat
thedefendantwasnotpresentattheplacewhereanoffencewascommittedisnotevidenceinsupportofanalibiwithin
section11(8)andthuswithintheremainderofthesection.Bytheclearwordsofsubsection(8),evidenceinsupportofanalibi
hastobeevidencethatthedefendantwasatsomeotherparticularplace,orinsomeotherparticulararea.If,aswearetold,
thereisanydoubtabouttheproperinterpretationofsection11(8),thatdoubt,wehope,cannowbestilled.
282
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
IfyouconcludethatthedefendantmaygenuinelyhaveforgottenthathehadbeenawayfshingwithXon
theweekendof6June,thenyoucouldnotholdhisfailuretomentionitagainsthim.If,ontheotherhand,
youaresurethathisexplanationofforgetfulnessisfalse,itisopentoyoutoconcludethattheonlysensible
reasonforitisthatthisevidenceofalibiisofrecentinvention.Youshouldreachsuchaconclusiononlyif,
havingconsideredtheevidenceofthedefendantandXwithcare,youaresurethatitisfairandpropertodo
so.Ifyoudoconcludethatthealibiisfalse,thatisnotenoughtoprovetheprosecutioncase.Adefendant
mayconstructanalibiforreasonswhichdonotnecessarilyimplyguilt,suchasabeliefthatitiseasiertosay
Iwasnttherethantotellthetruth.Furthermore,youneedtoexaminethepossibilitythatthedefendant
wastellingthetruthwhenhesaidhewasnotpresent,butlyingwhentoldyouhewentfshing,because
hecouldnotprovewherehereallywasatthetimeoftheattackonV.Whileafalsealibimaydamagethe
defencetheburdenremainsontheprosecutiontoprovethedefendantsguiltsothatyouaresure.
Sources
Archbold12-56/64;BlackstoneD9.18/24
283
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(8) Defendants Silence at Trial
Introduction
Bysection35(2)CriminalJusticeandPublicOrderAct1994thejurymaydrawaninferenceadversetothe
defendantfromhisfailuretogiveevidenceathistrial.
514
515
:
1. Thedefendantsguiltisinissue;
2. Itdoesnotappeartothetrialjudgethatthephysicalormentalconditionofthedefendantmakesit
undesirableforthedefendanttogiveevidence
516
;
3. Thetrialjudgehassatisfedhimselfinthepresenceofthejurythatthedefendantwasawarethat:
(i)thestagehadbeenreachedatwhichevidencecouldbegivenforthedefence;
(ii) hecouldifhewishedgiveevidence;
(iii) ifhechosenottogiveevidenceor,havingbeensworn,withoutgoodcause,refusedtoanswer
questionsitwouldbepermissibleforthejurytodrawsuchinferencesasappearproper;
4. Thedefendantdeclinedtogiveevidenceorrefused,withoutgoodcause
517
,toanswerquestions.
TheConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirectiongivesguidanceontheapplicationofsection35(2)asfollows:
DEFENDANTS RIGHT TO GIVE OR NOT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
Iftheaccusedislegallyrepresented
(IV.44.2)Section35(1)providesthatsection35(2)doesnotapplyifattheconclusionoftheevidencefor
theprosecutiontheaccusedslegalrepresentativeinformsthecourtthattheaccusedwillgiveevidence.
Thisshouldbedoneinthepresenceofthejury.Iftherepresentativeindicatesthattheaccusedwillgive
evidencethecaseshouldproceedintheusualway.
(IV.44.3)Ifthecourtisnotsoinformed,orifthecourtisinformedthattheaccuseddoesnotintendto
giveevidence,thejudgeshouldinthepresenceofthejuryinquireoftherepresentativeintheseterms:
Haveyouadvisedyourclientthatthestagehasnowbeenreachedatwhichhemaygiveevidenceand,if
hechoosesnottodosoor,havingbeensworn,withoutgoodcauserefusestoansweranyquestion,the
jurymaydrawsuchinferencesasappearproperfromhisfailuretodoso?
Footnotes
514
ForthefullsectionseeArchbold4-305;BlackstoneF19.20
515
Section35(1),(2),and(5)CJPOA1994
516
SeeFriend[1997]1WLR1433,[1997]2CrAppR231;A[997]CrimLR883;Kavanagh[2005]EWHC820(Admin)medical
evidencewillalmostcertainlyberequired.Inassessingwhetheritisundesirablethejudgeisentitledtoweighthelikely
signifcanceofthedefendantsevidencetotheissuesinthecasewiththenatureandconsequencesofthementalcondition
revealedbytheexpertevidenceTabbakh[2009]EWCACrim464
517
Thedefendantis,bysection35(5)CJPOA1994,tobetakentohaverefusedtoanswerwithoutduecauseunlessheisentitled,by
virtueofanyotherenactmentoronthegroundofprivilege,toanswer,or,thetrialjudgeexcuseshimfromansweringunderhis
generaldiscretion
284
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(IV.44.4)Iftherepresentativerepliestothejudgethattheaccusedhasbeensoadvised,thenthecase
shallproceed.Ifcounselrepliesthattheaccusedhasnotbeensoadvised,thenthejudgeshalldirectthe
representativetoadvisehisclientoftheconsequencessetoutinparagraphIV.44.3andshouldadjourn
briefyforthispurposebeforeproceedingfurther.
Iftheaccusedisnotlegallyrepresented
(IV.44.5)Iftheaccusedisnotrepresented,thejudgeshallattheconclusionoftheevidenceforthe
prosecutionandinthepresenceofthejurysaytotheaccused:
Youhaveheardtheevidenceagainstyou.Nowisthetimeforyoutomakeyourdefence.Youmay
giveevidenceonoath,andbecross-examinedlikeanyotherwitness.Ifyoudonotgiveevidence
or,havingbeensworn,withoutgoodcauserefusetoansweranyquestionthejurymaydrawsuch
inferencesasappearproper.Thatmeanstheymayholditagainstyou.Youmayalsocallanywitness
orwitnesseswhomyouhavearrangedtoattendcourt.Afterwardsyoumayalso,ifyouwish,address
thejurybyarguingyourcasefromthedock.Butyoucannotatthatstagegiveevidence.Doyounow
intendtogiveevidence?
Section35(2)ismandatory.Thejurymaynotdrawanadverseinferencefromafailuretogiveevidenceunless
thetrialjudgehasaskedtherelevantquestionsofthedefendantorhisadvocate,evenifthedefendanthas
deliberatelyabsentedhimselffromthetrial,thusputtingitbeyondthepowerofdefenceadvocatetoobtain
instructions.
518
Itisthedefendantsadvocatesdutytoensurethatthedefendantunderstandsadviceastowhetherheshould
giveevidenceornotandthatawrittenrecordismade,signedbythedefendant,acknowledginghiswishnot
togiveevidence.
519
Aconvictionshouldnotbebasedsolelyuponthedefendantsfailuretogiveevidence.
520
Noinferencecanbedrawnwherethefactsadducedbytheprosecutionareunchallengedandtheonlyissue
remainingiswhethertheyamountedtotheoffencecharged.
521
Inferences Available
Thejurymustbesatisfedthatthereisacasetoanswerbeforetheydrawanadverseinference.
522
But,the
effectofalackofevidencefromthedefendantwillusuallybethattheprosecutionevidenceisunchallenged.
Thejuryneednotresolvedisputedissuesoffactbeforeconcludingthereisacasetoanswer.
523
Thenatureoftheinferenceavailablewilldependonthewayinwhichtheevidencehasdevelopedandthe
strengthoftheprosecutioncase.Thestrongerthecasethemorepowerfultheincentivetoprovideananswer,
ifthereisone.
Footnotes
518
Gough[2002]2CrAppR121,[2001]EWCACrim2545
519
Bevan[1994]98CrAppR354;Chatroodi[2001]EWCACrim585at39
520
Section38(3)CJPOA1994.Notetheadditionofthewordsormainlyinfailuretomentionsection34CJPOA1996cases:Petkar
521
SeeMcManus[2001]EWCACrim2455
522
Cowan[1996]QB373,[1995]3WLR818,[1996]1CrAppR1
523
NotetheobservationsofPillLJinWhitehead[2006]EWCACrim1486at48.Theevidencefortheprosecutionmustbe
suffcientlycogenttocallforanexplanationbeforetheconsideringtheinferenceofguilt
28S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
IntheNorthernIrelandappealinMurrayvDPP
524
,LordSlynnofferedthefollowinganalysis:
...ifpartsoftheprosecutioncasehadsolittleevidentialvaluethattheycalledfornoanswer,afailuretodeal
withthosespecifcmatterscannotjustifyaninferenceofguilt.Ontheotherhand,ifaspectsoftheevidence
takenaloneorincombinationwithotherfactsclearlycallforanexplanationwhichtheaccusedoughttobeina
positiontogive,ifanexplanationexists,thenafailuretogiveanyexplanationmayasamatterofcommonsense
allowthedrawingofaninferencethatthereisnoexplanationandthattheaccusedisguilty.
LordTaylorCJinCowan
525
said:
Theeffectofsection35isthatthecourtorjurymayregardtheinferencefromfailuretotestifyas,ineffect,a
furtherevidentialfactorinsupportoftheprosecutioncase.Itcannotbetheonlyfactortojustifyaconvictionand
thetotalityoftheevidencemustproveguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Directions
InCowan
526
LordTaylorCJdescribedtheessentialelementsofdirectionstothejuryasfollows:
1. Thejudgewillhavetoldthejurythattheburdenofproofremainsupontheprosecutionthroughout
andwhattherequiredstandardis.
2. Itisnecessaryforthejudgetomakecleartothejurythatthedefendantisentitledtoremainsilent.
Thatishisrightandhischoice.Therightofsilenceremains.
3. Aninferencefromfailuretogiveevidencecannotonitsownproveguilt.Thatisexpresslystatedin
section38(3)oftheAct.
4. Therefore,thejurymustbesatisfedthattheprosecutionhaveestablishedacasetoanswerbefore
drawinganyinferencesfromsilence.Ofcourse,thejudgemusthavethoughtsoorthequestion
whetherthedefendantwastogiveevidencewouldnothavearisen.Butthejurymaynotbelievethe
witnesseswhoseevidencethejudgeconsideredsuffcienttoraiseaprimafaciecase.Itmusttherefore
bemadecleartothemthattheymustfndtheretobeacasetoanswerontheprosecutionevidence
beforedrawinganadverseinferencefromthedefendantssilence.
5. If,despiteanyevidencereliedupontoexplainhissilenceorintheabsenceofanysuchevidence,the
juryconcludethesilencecanonlysensiblybeattributedtothedefendantshavingnoanswerornone
thatwouldstanduptocross-examination,theymaydrawanadverseinference.
Thequestionwhetherasection35directionshouldbegivenandinwhattermsshouldbediscussed
withtheadvocatesbeforespeeches.Thedefencemightwellberemindedoftherulethatnoreason
maybeadvancedtothejuryforthedefendantsdecisionnottogiveevidencewithoutevidence
tosupportit.
527
Equally,ifthejudgeconcludesthatnoadverseinferenceisfairlyandproperly
available,thejuryshouldbeexplicitlydirected.
528
Footnotes
524
[1994]1WLR1atpage11
525
AtCrAppRpage5
526
AtCrAppRpage7
527
Cowanatpage9:Finally,wewishtomakeitclearthattheruleagainstadvocatesgivingevidencedressedupasasubmission
appliesinthiscontext.Itcannotbeproperforadefenceadvocatetogivetothejuryreasonsforhisclientssilenceattrialinthe
absenceofevidencetosupportsuchreasons.
528
McGarry[1999]1WLR1500,[1999]1CrAppR377,acaseundersection34
28o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Inthemajorityofcasestherewillbespecifcissuesraisedbytheevidencefortheprosecution,either
thetruthofthefactsassertedortheconclusiontobereachedfromcircumstantialevidence.The
immediateinferenceavailableforthejuryfromthedefendantschoicenottogiveevidenceisthat
thedefendanthasnoanswertogiveand,accordingly,thatthefactortheconclusion,asthecase
maybe,istrue.However,itmaynotfollowthatalegitimateadverseinferencemustimplyguiltand,
whereitdoesnot,thejurywillbeassistedbyanexplanationtothateffect.
Itmaybe,forexample,thatthedefendantssilencewillsupporttheprosecutionscasethat
heparticipatedinrelevantacts.Itmayormaynot,dependingonthejurysview,supportthe
prosecutioncaseastohisspecifcintent.
Wherethedefendanthasgivenanexplanationinawrittenstatementorduringinterviewunder
cautionthejuryshouldconsideritasevidenceofthetruthofitscontents.Wherethedefendant
reliesuponaninterviewwhichconsistspartlyofadmissionandpartlyofdenialorexplanation,
discussionwiththeadvocatesmayberequiredtoidentifywhichpartsoftheinterviewareself
serving.Thejudgemaymakelegitimatecommenttotheeffectthataselfservingstatementwas
notmadeunderoathandhasnotbeentestedbycross-examination.
529
Intherarecasewhenthe
statementiswhollyexculpatoryitisadmissibleasevidenceofthedefendantsreactionwhenfrst
challengedbutnotinproofofthemattersstated.
530
Whetherthestatementiswhollyexculpatory
shouldbejudgedagainsttherealissuesastheyappearattrial.
531
InHamidiandCherazi
532
oneoftheaccusedabsentedhimselffromtrialattheoutset.Inhiscasethesection
35directioncouldnotbegiven;onthecontrary,thejuryweregiventheconventionaldirectionthatthey
shouldnotspeculateaboutthereasonsforhisabsenceandshouldnotholditagainsthim.Theappellants,
whowerepresentthroughoutthetrial,electednottogiveevidence.Intheircasesthesection35direction
wasgiven.Theirargumentonappealthattheirtreatmentwasunfairbycomparisonwiththatofthe
absentaccused,andthatthejuryshouldhavebeendirectednottodrawanyinferencefromsilence,was
unsuccessful.Thepositionmighthavebeendifferentiftherehadbeenasignifcantoverlapinthecasesofthe
appellantsandtheabsentaccused.
Footnotes
529
Duncan[1981]73CrAppR359(CACD)approvedinSharp[1988]1WLR7(HL)andAziz[1996]AC41(HL)
530
Garrod[1997]CrimLR445,[1996]EWCACrim1149
531
PapworthandDoyle[2007]EWCACrim3031at13-15
532
[2010]EWCACrim66
287
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration wholly self serving statement - advocate advancing reason for silence relevance of self
serving statement prosecution evidence not contradicted - availability of inferences
The defendant has been identifed by two witnesses as being present at and taking part in the attack
uponV.Hiscase,asadvancedthroughquestionsputtothosewitnessesincross-examination,isthatthey
aremistaken.Ihaveexplainedthecarewithwhichyoushouldapproachevidenceofidentifcation.Inhis
interviewundercautionthedefendantdeniedbeingpresent.Hesaidhecouldnotrecallwherehewasbuthe
certainlywasnotpresentwhentheincidenttookplace.
The defendant has chosen not to give evidence in support of his defence. I need to explain how this is
relevanttoyourconsiderationofthecase.
(2)
533
Youmustrememberthatthedefendanthasaperfectrightnottogiveevidenceandtorequirethe
prosecutiontoproveitscase.(3) Youcannotjumptotheconclusionthathissilenceprovesthecaseagainst
him.Itdoesnot.(1)Theburdenremainsontheprosecutiontoproveitscasesothatyouaresure.
However,thedefendantssilenceisrelevanttoyourconsiderationofthecaseintworespects:
First,thereisnoevidencebeforeyoucapableofcontradicting,underminingorexplainingtheevidenceforthe
prosecution.Althoughwhatthedefendantsaidininterviewisevidenceofhisreactionwhenfrstchallenged
bythepolice,itisnotcapableofbeingevidencethathewaselsewhereatthetimeoftheattackonV.
534
Itis
simplyanassertionmadebythedefendantonanoccasionwhenhewasnotgivingevidence.
Second,hisdecisionnottogiveevidencemay,dependingonyourview,addweighttotheprosecutioncase.
YouwillrecallthatIaskeddefencecounselinyourpresencewhetherthedefendantunderstoodthatifhe
didnotgiveevidenceyou,thejury,maydrawsuchinferencesasappearproper.Inotherwords,itisopen
toyoutoconcludethatthereasonwhythedefendanthasremainedsilentisthathehasnoanswertothe
prosecutioncaseornonethatwouldstanduptoexamination.
Defence counsel put forward a reason why you should not hold the defendants silence against him. He
suggestedtoyouthatifthedefendantcouldnot,wheninterviewed,rememberwherehewasattherelevant
timeheisunlikelytobeabletoassistyounow.Ineedtopointouttwothings:First,counselcannotadvance
reasonsforthedefendantssilencewithoutevidenceinsupport.Thisisasuggestionunsupportedbyevidence.
Second,counselsargumentmakesanassumptionthatwhatthedefendantassertedininterviewwastrue.
That,however,istheveryquestionwhichyouhavetodecide-whetherthedefendantwaspresentornot.
Thedefendantcould,ifhewished,havegivenevidencethathewasnotpresentand,ifhehad,itwouldhave
beenexposedtoexamination.
Thedefendantchosenottogiveevidenceanditisopentoyoutoreachaconclusionadversetohiscase.Itis
yourdecisionwhetheritisthefairandproperconclusiontoreach.Itisoneyoushouldreachonlyif (4)you
regardtheprosecutioncaseassuffcientlystrongtorequireananswerfromthedefendant,and(5)youare
surethattheonlysensibleexplanationforhissilenceishisawarenessthathehasnoanswer,ornonethat
wouldbearexamination.
Footnotes
533
ReferencetotheCowandirections
534
Becauseitiswhollyselfserving
288
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration effect of admissions and explanations in mixed statement inferences available
The defendant has chosen not to give evidence in his own defence. I need to explain how that choice is
relevant to your consideration of the case.
(2)
535
Youmustrememberthatthedefendanthasaperfectrighttoremainwhereheisandtorequirethe
prosecutiontoproveitscase.(3) Youcannotjumptotheconclusionthathissilenceprovesthecaseagainst
him.Itdoesnot.(1) Theburdenremainsontheprosecutiontoproveitscase.Thatobligationmeansthe
prosecutionmustprovesothatyouaresurethatthedefendantdidnotactinlawfulselfdefence.
However,thedefendantssilenceisrelevanttoyourconsiderationoftheevidenceintworespects:
First, there is no oral evidence before you capable of contradicting, undermining or explaining the case
fortheprosecution.Thedefendantdid,however,giveanaccounttothepoliceonwhichhisadvocatehas
placedagooddealofemphasis.Init,thedefendantadmittedusingviolenceonVbuthesaidhedidso
becausehewasinfearofanattackfromV.Inotherwords,thedefendantclaimedthathewasactingin
selfdefence.Thedefendantsinterviewisadmissibleinevidenceandyoumustconsiderwhathethensaid
withcare.However,Ineedtopointouttwothingsforyoutoconsider:Vhasnowgivenevidence,ashasan
independentbystander,MrA.Theaccountgivenbythedefendantininterviewhasbeenputtobothofthem
andyouwillrecallthetermsinwhichtheyrejectedit.Theirevidenceremainsuncontradictedbyevidenceon
oath,testedbycrossexamination.Furthermore,youmayconcludethatwhilethedefendantsacceptancein
interviewofhisinvolvementinviolenceisanadmissionagainsthisowninterestand,forthatreason,likelyto
betrue,hisclaimtohavebeenactinginselfdefenceiscontroversialand,forthatreason,tobetreatedwith
morecircumspection.Thesearemyobservationsforyoutoconsider.Whetheryouagreeordisagreewith
themyoumustdecide.
Second, the defendants decision not to give evidence may, depending on your view, add weight to the
prosecution case. You will recall that I asked defence counsel in your presence whether the defendant
understoodthatifhedidnotgiveevidenceyou,thejury,maydrawsuchinferencesasappearproper.What
inferenceorconclusionmightbeavailable?Itisonething,perhaps,toadvanceacaseofselfdefenceby
cross-examination of the victim and a witness, and through the contents of a police interview with the
police,butanothertogiveevidenceonoathoraffrmationandtoexposeittoexamination.Inotherwords,
itisopentoyoutoconcludethatthereasonwhythedefendanthasremainedsilentathistrialisthatintruth
hehasnoanswertotheprosecutioncaseornonethatwouldstanduptoexamination.
Ihavesaiditisopentoyou.Itisyourdecisionwhetheritisthefairandproperconclusiontoreach.Itisone
youshouldreachonlyif(4) youregardtheprosecutioncaseassuffcientlystrongtorequireananswerfrom
thedefendant,and(5) youaresurethattheonlysensibleexplanationforhissilenceishisawarenessthathe
hasnoanswer,ornonethatwouldbearexamination.
Sources
Archbold4-305/306,4-398/399,15-400/407;BlackstoneF19.19/28,F17.61/65
ForobservationsbythetrialjudgeonthefailuretocallawitnessseeArchbold4-400;BlackstoneF19.30/31.
SeealsoShakeelKhan[2001]EWCACrim486;Campbell(Jason)[2009]EWCACrim1076.
Fordrawinganadverseinferencefromafailuretoprovideanintimatesampleseesection62(10)PACE184,
Footnotes
535
ReferencetotheCowandirections
28
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 16: DeFences
(1) Alibi
Introduction
1. Forthepurposesofdisclosureinadefencestatement,evidenceofalibiis,bysection6A(3)Criminal
ProcedureandInvestigationsAct1996:
evidencetendingtoshowthatbyreasonofthepresenceoftheaccusedataparticularplaceorina
particularareaataparticulartimehewasnot,orwasunlikelytohavebeen,attheplacewherethe
offenceisallegedtohavebeencommittedatthetimeofitsallegedcommission.
2. InJohnson
536
theCourtofAppealconsideredthemeaningofidenticalwordsinsection11(8)Criminal
JusticeAct1967,thepredecessortothedefencedisclosureprovisionsofthe1996Act.GlidewellLJ,giving
thejudgmentofthecourtsaid
537
:
Inourjudgment,evidence,whetherfromadefendanthimselforfromanyotherperson,whichgoesno
furtherthanthatthedefendantwasnotpresentattheplacewhereanoffencewascommittedisnot
evidenceinsupportofanalibiwithinsection11(8)andthuswithintheremainderofthesection.Bythe
clearwordsofsubsection(8),evidenceinsupportofanalibihastobeevidencethatthedefendantwas
atsomeotherparticularplace,orinsomeotherparticulararea.If,aswearetold,thereisanydoubtabout
theproperinterpretationofsection11(8),thatdoubt,wehope,cannowbestilled.
3. Therequirementsofdisclosureinthedefencestatementunderthe1996Actinclude,undersection6A,
hisdefence,themattersonwhichthedefendanttakesissuewiththeprosecutionand(sinceNovember
2008)particularsoffactsonwhichheintendstorelyinhisdefence.If,therefore,thedefendantscaseis
thathewasnotpresentatthetimeoftheallegedoffence,hisobligationistodisclosethatassertion,even
ifheisunabletoadvanceadefencethathewasatsomeotherparticularplaceorarea.
538
4. Wheneverthedefendantscaseisthathewasnotpresentatthesceneofthecrime,whetherheasserts
thathewasatsomeotherparticularplaceorareaornot,theburdenisontheprosecutiontoprovethat
hecommittedtheoffence.Thus,thejudgesdirectionstothejurydonotnecessarilydependonwhether
aspecifcassertionastohiswhereaboutsismade,ratheronwhether:
(1) hehasgivenlatenoticeofhisdefence(sections5and11CPIA1996),
(2)heisnowrelyingonafactwhichhefailedtomentionedwhenquestionedorcharged(section34
CJPOA1994)and/or
(3)hehasliedinhisassertionthathewaselsewhereatthetimeoftheoffence.
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
536
[1995]2CrAppR1
537
Atpage9
538
SeeChapter15DefendantsStatementsandBehaviour(7)FailureofDefendanttoMakeProperDisclosureofDefenceCase
20
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. Justasinthecasesoflatedisclosure,failuretomentionwhenquestioned,andlies,thejudgewillneed
toidentifyforthejurythelegitimateinferences.Itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatifthealibiisfalsethe
defendanthasnodefence.Theprosecutionevidencemay,forexample,revealevidenceofselfdefenceor,
inatrialformurder,provocation.
Directions
Thefrstrequirementofthedirectiontothejuryisthattheyunderstandthereisnoburdenonthedefendant
toprovethathewaselsewhere.Theprosecutionmustproveitscaseandthatincludestheneedtoprovethat
thedefendantcommittedtheoffence.
Thesecondistoguardagainstthedangerthatifthejurydisbelievethedefendantsalibi,whetheritisamere
denialofpresenceorapositiveassertionthathewaselsewhere,theymightassumeheisguilty.Theriskwas
succinctlyputbyLordMorrisofBorth-y-GestinBroadhurst
539
,acasewhichdidnotinvolvealibibutalleged
liesinevidence:
Itisveryimportantthatajuryshouldbecarefullydirectedupontheeffectofaconclusion,iftheyreach
it,thattheaccusedislying.Thereisanaturaltendencyforajurytothinkthatifanaccusedislying,itmust
bebecauseheisguiltyandaccordinglytoconvicthimwithoutmoreado.Itisthedutyofthejudgeto
makeitcleartothemthatthisisnotso.
Particularcareisrequiredwhenthecontestisbetweenidentifyingwitnessesandtheevidenceofalibi.Inthe
leadingauthorityonidentifcationevidence,Turnbull
540
,LordWidgeryC.J.said:
Careshouldbetakenbythejudgewhendirectingthejuryaboutthesupportforanidentifcationwhich
maybederivedfromthefactthattheyhaverejectedanalibi.Falsealibismaybeputforwardformany
reasons:anaccused,forexample,whohasonlyhisowntruthfulevidencetorelyon,maystupidlyfabricate
analibiandgetlyingwitnessestosupportitoutoffearthathisownevidencewillnotbeenough.Further,
alibiwitnessescanmakegenuinemistakesaboutdatesonoccasions,likeotherwitnessescan.Itisonly
when the jury is satisfed that the whole reason for the fabrication was to deceive them and there is
no other explanation for its being put forward, can fabrication provide any support for identifcation
evidence.Thejuryshouldberemindedthatprovingtheaccusedhastoldliesaboutwherehewasatthe
materialtimedoesnotbyitselfprovethathewaswheretheidentifyingwitnesssaidhewas.
Thus,thewarningshouldbegivenwheneverthereisariskthatthejurywill,havingrejectedthealibi,assume
guiltoftheoffencecharged.
InBaillie
541
thedefendant,havingshothisvictim,wenttothehomeofafriendandtriedtopersuadehim
tosupporthiminafalsealibi.Attrial,thedefendantacceptedthathewasthegunmanbutsaidthathewas
actingunderprovocation.TheCourtofAppealheldthatthejuryshouldhavebeenwarnedagainsttheriskof
assumingthedefendantsguiltofmurder(ratherthanmanslaughter)fromhiswillingnesstofabricateanalibi.
TheCourtappliedthereasoningexpressedbyLordTaylorCJinRichens
542
asfollows:
Footnotes
539
[1964]AC441atpage457
540
(1976)63Cr.App.R.132,atpage139,[1977]Q.B.224atpage230
541
[1995]2CrAppR31
542
21
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....thejurywerebeinginvitedtoconsideraspotentiallyprobativeoftheCrownscaseofmurderandas
justifyingtherejectionoftheappellantsaccountofprovocation,thefactsthat(i)hehadtriedtoconceal
hiscrime;(ii)hehadliedabouthisinvolvement;and(iii)hehadliedabouthisreasonsfortryingtocover
up,andlyingabout,hisinvolvement.
Thisapproachappearstoustooverlookthevitalandincontestablefactthatamanwhohaskilledby
reason of loss of self-control, and therefore faces arrest, trial and possible lengthy imprisonment, may
havealmostasstrongareasonforattemptingtoconcealhisdeedsandlieabouthisinvolvementasaman
whohaskilleddeliberately.
Itisnotineverycasethatthesecondlimbofthedirectionwillbeessential.Where,forexample,onthe
particularfacts,theinevitableconclusionisthatthejurymusthaverejectedthealibionlybecausethe
prosecutionproveditscase,theCourtofAppealwillnotinterfere.
543
However,wheneverthereisscopefor
therejectionofthealibiasafndingoffactlogicallyindependentofaconclusionofguilt,thedirectionshould
begiven.
544
Illustration alibi defence witness called on defendants behalf - alternative counts

Thedefendantsdefenceisalibi.HesayshewasnotpresentattheattackonVandthattheevidenceof
AandB,whobothidentifyhimastheattackerwiththeknife,ismistaken.Whilethedefendanthasput
forwardthedefenceofalibi,theburdenoftheprovingthecaseagainsthimremainsontheprosecution.The
prosecutionmustprovesothatyouaresurethatthedefendantwascorrectlyidentifedand,therefore,that
hisalibiisuntrue.
Thedefendanthasgivenevidenceandhascalledawitness,C,tosupporthisassertionthatatthetime
thisattacktookplace,hewasamileawaywalkingwithCbetweenpublichouses.Boththedefendantand
Cwerecross-examinedaboutthealibiandyouareinvitedbytheprosecutiontoconcludethattheywere
lying.
Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsalibiistrueormaybetrue,thenhecannothaveparticipatedinthe
attackonVandyoumustfndhimnotguilty.If,ontheotherhand,youaresure,havingconsideredthe
evidencecarefully,thatthedefendantsalibiisfalse,thatisafndingoffactwhichyouareentitledtotake
intoaccountwhenjudgingwhetherheisguilty.Butdonotjumptotheconclusionthatbecausethealibiput
forwardisfalsethedefendantmustbeguilty.Youshouldbearinmindthatsometimesanalibiisinvented
becausethedefendantthinksitiseasierthantellingthetruth.Themainquestionforyoutoansweris:are
wesurethatAandBhavecorrectlyidentifedthedefendantasthemanwhowoundedV?
IfyouaresurethatthedefendantwascorrectlyidentifedbyAandB,thequestionremainswhetherthe
defendantwoundedVwithintenttocausehimreallyseriousinjury.Ifyouaresurehehadthat
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
543
SeeHarron[1996]2CrAppR257-WhereevidenceofwitnessesfortheCrownprovingguiltwasindirectandirreconcilable
confictwiththeevidenceofthedefendantandhiswitnessesthejuryhad,asamatteroflogic,todecidewhichwitnesseswere
tellingthetruth.Iftheyacceptedtheprosecutionevidencethatnecessarilyinvolvedaconclusionthatthedefenceevidencewas
untrueandthatthedefendantwasthereforelying.
544
Anderson[1991]CrimLR361;Lesley[1996]1CrAppR39
22
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
intentyouwouldconvicthimofcount1.Ifyouarenotsurethedefendanthadthatintentyouwouldconvict
him of count 2. When considering whether the prosecution has proved the defendants intent, you are
entitledtobearinmindallrelevantcircumstances,includingyourrejectionofthedefendantsevidence,but
rememberthatamanwhohaswoundedanotherwithaknifemayhaveanincentivetomakeupanalibi
whetherheintendedtocauseseriousharmornot.Providedyouproceedwithcaution,itisforyoutodecide
whatweightandsignifcancetogivetothefalsealibi.
Illustration alibi defence which can only be disproved by evidence of identifcation alternative
counts
Thedefendantscaseisthathewaselsewherewhenthisoffencewascommitted.AsIhavetoldyou,thefact
thatthedefendanthasgivenevidencedoesnotimplythathebearsanyburdenofprovinghiscase.The
burdenremainsontheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltsothatyouaresure.Heretheprosecutionreliesupon
theevidenceofVhimselftoprovethatthedefendantwashisattackerand,therefore,thatthedefendants
alibiisfalse.Vandthedefendantareknowntooneanother.Thedefendantadmitsthattherehavebeen
unfriendlyconfrontationsbetweenthemonpreviousoccasions.
YoushouldfrstexaminethepossibilitythatVmayhavemadeagenuinebutmistakenidentifcationofthe
defendant.Ifyouthinkthatisso,ormaybeso,thenyoushouldfndthedefendantnotguilty.If,onthe
otherhand,youconcludethatthereisnoroomformistake,thencommonsensedictatesthateitherVorthe
defendantisnottellingthetruth.OnlyifyouaresurethatVhasgiventruthfulandaccurateevidenceshould
you fnd the defendant guilty of either count 1 (grievous bodily harm with intent) or count 2 (inficting
grievousbodilyharm).
If you are sure that the defendant was Vs attacker, then in considering the defendants intent you are
entitledtotakeintoaccountyourfndingthatthedefendanthasliedtoyouabouthisalibi.Whatweight
andsignifcanceyouattachtothefalsealibiisforyoutojudge.Youshould,however,bearinminditdoes
not follow that just because he denied being Vs attacker the defendant must have intended to cause V
really serious harm. You should judge the defendants intent from all the relevant circumstances. Those
circumstancescomprise,mainly,thenatureoftheattackandtheinjuriessufferedbyV.
Sources
Archbold4-383,4-402/402a;BlackstoneD16.14/16,D17.33
23
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Self-Defence and Related Issues
Introduction
1. Bysection3(1)CriminalLawAct1967:
Apersonmayusesuchforceasisreasonableinthecircumstancesinthepreventionofcrime,
545
orin
effectingorassistinginthelawfularrestofoffendersorsuspectedoffendersorofpersonsunlawfully
atlarge.
2. Bysection3(2):
Subsection(1)aboveshallreplacetherulesofthecommonlawonthequestionwhenforceusedfor
apurposementionedinthesubsectionisjustifedbythatpurpose.
3. Forceusedinselfdefencewillusuallybeforceusedinpreventionofcrimesincetheobjectofselfdefence
istopreventanunlawfulattackoracontinuationofanunlawfulattackononeself,butcasesofself
defencearealmostneverjustifed,exceptbypoliceoffcers,asthepreventionofcrimesinceitisthe
commonlawthatreasonableforcemaybeusedindefenceofoneself.
546
4. Thelawofselfdefenceanddefenceofanother
547
isnowrefectedinsection76CriminalJusticeand
ImmigrationAct2008.Thesectionappliestoanytrialfollowingarraignmenttakingplaceafter14July
2008.Section76provides:
(1)Thissectionapplieswhereinproceedingsforanoffence
(a)anissuearisesastowhetherapersonchargedwiththeoffence(D)isentitledtorelyona
defencewithinsubsection(2),and
(b)thequestionariseswhetherthedegreeofforceusedbyDagainstaperson(V)was
reasonableinthecircumstances.
(2)Thedefencesare
(a)thecommonlawdefenceofself-defence;and
(b)thedefencesprovidedbysection3(1)oftheCriminalLawAct1967(c.58)orsection3(1)of
theCriminalLawAct(NorthernIreland)1967(c.18(N.I.))(useofforceinpreventionofcrimeor
makingarrest).
(3)ThequestionwhetherthedegreeofforceusedbyDwasreasonableinthecircumstancesistobe
decidedbyreferencetothecircumstancesasDbelievedthemtobe,andsubsections(4)to(8)also
applyinconnectionwithdecidingthatquestion.
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
545
Thepublicinternationallawcrimeofwarofaggressionisnotacrimeincorporatedintodomesticlawpreventionofwhich
providesadefencetochargesofcriminaldamageoraggravatedtrespass;evenifitweretheuseofcriminalactstopreventit
wouldbeunlawful:Jonesandothers[2006]UKHL16
546
Duffy[1967]1QB63
547
Fordefenceofpropertyseebelow
24
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) IfDclaimstohaveheldaparticularbeliefasregardstheexistenceofanycircumstances
(a)thereasonablenessorotherwiseofthatbeliefisrelevanttothequestionwhetherDgenuinely
heldit;but
(b)ifitisdeterminedthatDdidgenuinelyholdit,Disentitledtorelyonitforthepurposesof
subsection(3),whetherornot
(i)itwasmistaken,or
(ii)(ifitwasmistaken)themistakewasareasonableonetohavemade.
(5)Butsubsection(4)(b)doesnotenableDtorelyonanymistakenbeliefattributabletointoxication
thatwasvoluntarilyinduced.
(6)ThedegreeofforceusedbyDisnottoberegardedashavingbeenreasonableinthe
circumstancesasDbelievedthemtobeifitwasdisproportionateinthosecircumstances.
(7)Indecidingthequestionmentionedinsubsection(3)thefollowingconsiderationsaretobetaken
intoaccount(sofarasrelevantinthecircumstancesofthecase)
(a)thatapersonactingforalegitimatepurposemaynotbeabletoweightoanicetytheexact
measureofanynecessaryaction;and
(b)thatevidenceofapersonshavingonlydonewhatthepersonhonestlyandinstinctively
thoughtwasnecessaryforalegitimatepurposeconstitutesstrongevidencethatonlyreasonable
actionwastakenbythatpersonforthatpurpose.
(8)Subsection(7)isnottobereadaspreventingothermattersfrombeingtakenintoaccountwhere
theyarerelevanttodecidingthequestionmentionedinsubsection(3).
(9)Thissectionisintendedtoclarifytheoperationoftheexistingdefencesmentionedin
subsection(2).
(10)Inthissection
(a)legitimatepurposemeans
(i)thepurposeofself-defenceunderthecommonlaw,or
(ii)thepreventionofcrimeoreffectingorassistinginthelawfularrestofpersonsmentionedin
theprovisionsreferredtoinsubsection(2)(b);
(b)referencestoself-defenceincludeactingindefenceofanotherperson;and
(c)referencestothedegreeofforceusedaretothetypeandamountofforceused.
Honest belief in the need to use force
5. Thefrstrequirementofthepleaofselfdefenceisthatthedefendanthonestlybelievedthatitwas
necessarytouseforceindefenceofhimself(oranother).InWilliams(Gladstone)
548
LordLaneCJdescribed
therelevanceofthedefendantsbeliefasfollows:
Footnotes
548
2S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Inacaseofself-defence,whereself-defenceorthepreventionofcrimeisconcerned,ifthejurycame
totheconclusionthatthedefendantbelieved,ormayhavebelieved,thathewasbeingattackedorthat
acrimewasbeingcommitted,andthatforcewasnecessarytoprotecthimselfortopreventthecrime,
thentheprosecutionhavenotprovedtheircase.Ifhoweverthedefendantsallegedbeliefwasmistaken
andifthemistakewasanunreasonableone,thatmaybeapowerfulreasonforcomingtotheconclusion
thatthebeliefwasnothonestlyheldandshouldberejected.Evenifthejurycometotheconclusionthat
themistakewasanunreasonableone,ifthedefendantmaygenuinelyhavebeenlabouringunderit,heis
entitledtorelyuponit.
6. ThisformulationofthetestwasapprovedbythePrivyCouncilinBeckford
549
.LordGriffthssaid:
Inassistingthejurytodeterminewhetherornottheaccusedhadagenuinebeliefthejudgewillofcourse
direct their attention to those features of the evidence that make such a belief more or less probable.
Wheretherearenoreasonablegroundstoholdabeliefitwillsurelyonlybeinexceptionalcircumstances
thatajurywillconcludethatsuchabeliefwasormighthavebeenheld.
Their Lordships therefore conclude that.....the test to be applied for self-defence is that a person may
usesuchforceasisreasonableinthecircumstancesashehonestlybelievesthemtobeinthedefenceof
himselforanother.
7. Section76(4)(a)followsthecommonlawinprovidingthattheissuewhetherthebeliefwasreasonable
isdifferentfromtheissuewhetherthebeliefwasheld.Indecidingwhetherthedefendantdidbelieveor
mayhavebelievedthatitwasnecessarytouseforcetodefendhimselfthereasonablenessofthebeliefis
relevantbutnotdecisive.Thus(section76(4)(b)),ifthedefendanthonestlybutmistakenlybelievedthatit
wasnecessarytodefendhimselfhewas,inusingforceuponV,actinglawfully.
8. Manycasesofselfdefenceareresolvedbythejuryagainstthedefendantonthesimplefndingthatitwas
thedefendantwhowastheaggressorand,accordingly,thathedidnotbelievethatitwasnecessaryto
useforcetodefendhimself.
9. However,thefactthatthedefendantwastheinitialaggressordoesnotnecessarilydeprivehimofthe
defence.ThedefendantmayhaveapproachedVwiththeintentionofdelivering,andinfactdelivering,
asalutaryblow.IftheresponsefromVwastolaunchanattackonthedefendant,thedefendantmay
honestlybelievethatitwasnecessarytousefurtherforceindefenceofhimself.Thesamecouldnot
besaid,however,ifthejurywassurethatthedefendantwasabullywhoseintentionwastoprovokea
responsefromVwhichwouldclothethedefendantwithaspuriousexcusetoinfictfurtherviolenceonV.
Thejurywillneedtoexaminethecircumstances,withtheassistanceofthetrialjudge,inordertoassess
whatthedefendantsstateofmindreallywas.
550
10. Apersonwhobelievesheisinimminentdangerofattackdoesnothavetoawaitthefrstblowbefore
responding.Hecantakepre-emptiveactiontopreventtheattack.
551
Butifheisawarethatawarning
wouldsuffcetopreventtheattack,hedoesnotbelievethatheneedstouseforce.
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
549
[1988]AC130(PC)atpage145
550
BurnsvHMAdvocate[1995]SLT1090;Rashford[2005]EWCACrim377;Harvey[2009]EWCACrim469
551
Beckford[1988]AC130atpage144
2o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Belief held in drink
11. Ifthedefendantclaimstohavebelievedthatitwasnecessarytodefendhimself,butthejuryissurethat
thebelief,ifhemayhaveheldit,wasinducedbyvoluntaryintoxication,thedefendantcannotrelyonit
(section76(5)).Inthisrespectalsosection76followsthecommonlaw.
552
12. Abeliefheldindrinkshould,however,bedistinguishedfromanintentionheldindrink.Ifself-defence
isnotavailabletothedefendantbecausehisbeliefwasinducedbydrink,theprosecutionmust,where
necessary,stillproveaspecifcintent,suchasanintenttokillortocausegrievousbodilyharm.
553
Reasonableness of force used
13. Ifthejuryconsiderthatthedefendantdidormayhonestlyhavebelievedthatitwasnecessaryforthe
defendanttodefendhimself,theywillreachthesecondlimbofthecommonlawtestwhichiswhether
theforceusedwasreasonableinthecircumstances.Section76(6)providesthattheforceusedbythe
defendantwasunreasonableifwasdisproportionateinthecircumstancesasthedefendantbelievedthem
tobe.
554
Thejuryisrequiredtoexerciseanobjectivejudgementwhethertheforceusedwasreasonable
inthecircumstances(whichwillincludethenatureofthedangerhefaced)asthedefendantunderstood
them.Again,amistakenunderstandingofthecircumstancescanberelieduponbythedefendantunless
thejuryissurehismistakewasinducedbyvoluntaryintoxication(section76(4)and(5)).
14. Injudgingwhetherthedefendantsresponsewasreasonablethejuryshouldtakeintoaccount(section
76(7)):(a)thatapersonactingindefenceofhimselfmaynotbeabletojudgeexactlythemeasureof
responserequired;and(b)ifthedefendantonlyusedforcewhichhehonestlyandinstinctivelythought
wasnecessary,thatwouldbepowerfulevidencethathisresponsewasreasonable.
Defence of another and force used in prevention of crime and in making an arrest
15. Section76appliessuitablyadaptedtothecircumstances.
Defence of Property
14. Atcommonlawahouseholderisentitledtousereasonableforceindefenceofhisproperty.InHussey
555
theCourtofCriminalAppealquashedaconvictionforunlawfulwoundingwhenthetrialjudge,while
leavingselfdefenceasanissueforthejury,hadfailedtoleavetothejurytheissueofdefenceofproperty.
Therelevantdistinctionbetweenthetwodefenceswasthatin1925selfdefencerequiredthedefendant
toretreatifhecould,whiledefenceofpropertydidnot,sincethatwouldbetantamounttosurrendering
hispropertytohisadversary.Thedefendantslandlordsoughtforciblytoregainpossessionofaroom
fromthedefendantwithoutgivingduenotice.Frominsidetheroom,thedefendantdischargedafrearm
atthedoorwhichwasbeingbrokendownbythelandlordandheraccomplices.Itistobenotedthat
thecourtdidnotholdthatuseofafrearminsuchcircumstanceswasreasonable,onlythatthedefence
shouldhavebeenlefttothejury.
556
Footnotes
552
OGrady[1987]QB995,85CrAppR315;Hatton[2006]1CrAppR16,[2005]EWCACrim2951
553
OConnor[1991]CrimLR135
554
RefectingtheviewofLordBinghaminShawvTheQueen[2001]UKPC26at19
555
[1925]18CrimAppR160
556
SeealsoGeorgiades[1989]CrAppR206andSalih[2007]EWCACrim2750ontheissueofthepossessionoffrearmswithintent
onlytousetheminselfdefence
27
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
15. DefenceofpropertywasconsideredrecentlybytheCourtofAppealinFaraj
557
whereitwasdeployedasa
defencetoachargeoffalseimprisonment.Thedefendanthouseholderbelievedthatamanwhoentered
hishousesayinghewasrepresentingautilityproviderwasinfactaburglar.Hedetainedhimatknife
pointintendingtomakeenquiriesaboutthemansidentity,butthenreleasedhimbeforetheenquiries
weremade.TuckeyLJ
558
said:
Sowhataboutdefenceofproperty?Wecanseenoreasonwhyahouse-holdershouldnotbeentitledto
detainsomeoneinhishousewhomhegenuinelybelievestobeaburglar.Hewouldbeactingindefence
ofhispropertybydoingso.Herefulleffectcanbegiventothedefendantsbeliefhoweverunreasonable
itmaybe.Butthisdefence,likeselfdefence,hasitslimits.Thehouseholdermusthonestlybelievethathe
needstodetainthesuspectandmustdosoinawaywhichisreasonable.Soiftheappellantbelievedthat
MrHaqwasaburglarhewouldbeentitledtobejudgedonthisbasisevenifhisbeliefwasunreasonable.
IfallthathehaddonewastodetainMrHaqforthepurposesofestablishinghisidentityitismostunlikely
thathewouldbefoundtohaveactedunreasonably.Whetherhisuseofaknifetodosowasreasonableis
anothermatterwhich,likeeverythingelse,wouldbeforthejurytodecide.
16. Itfollowsthatinjudgingthedefencethejurywillbeassessingwhetherthedefendantdidhaveormay
havehadanhonestbeliefthatthecircumstancesrendereditnecessaryforhimtodefendhisproperty.
Whetherthedefendantactedreasonablyindefenceofhispropertywillbedecidedonprinciplessimilar
tothosewhichapplytoselfdefence.
559
Directions
Thefrstquestionforthejudgeiswhetherthereisevidencefromwhichthejurycouldconcludethatthe
defendantactedinselfdefence.Thatevidenceneednotariseinthedefencecaseifitisareasonablepossibility
revealedbytheevidencefortheprosecution.Directionstothejuryshouldcontainreferencetothetwo-stage
test:
Didthedefendanthonestlybelieveormayhehonestlyhavebelievedthatheneededtodefend
himselfbecausehewasunderattackorinimminentdangerofattack?Theissueisnotwhether
thedefendantwasinfactunderattackorinimminentdangerofattackbutwhetherhegenuinely
believedthathewas.But,ifthejuryconcludesthattherewasnosuchattackordangerofattackthat
issomethingtheyareentitledtoconsiderwhendecidingwhetherthedefendanthastoldthetruth
abouthisbelief.Ifthejuryissurethatthedefendantheldnosuchbeliefselfdefencedoesnotarise.
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
557
[2007]EWCACrim1033
558
At22
559
FollowingthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealinMartin[2002]2WLR1,[2001]EWCACrim2245(inwhichthedefendant
dischargedashotgunattwomenenteringhispropertyandunsuccessfullypleadedselfdefence)theCrownProsecutionandthe
AssociationofChiefPoliceOffcersissuedajointstatementHouseholdersandtheuseofforceagainstintruders.Describingthe
lawofselfdefencethestatementsaid:Anyonecanusereasonableforcetoprotectthemselvesorothers,ortocarryoutanarrest
ortopreventcrime.Youarenotexpectedtomakefnejudgmentsoverthelevelofforceyouuseintheheatofthemoment.
Solongasyouonlydowhatyouhonestlyandinstinctivelybelieveisnecessaryintheheatofthemoment,thatwouldbethe
strongestevidenceofyouactinglawfullyandinself-defence.Thisisstillthecaseifyouusesomethingtohandasaweapon.Asa
generalrule,themoreextremethecircumstancesandthefearfelt,themoreforceyoucanlawfullyuseinself-defence.
(www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html)
28
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ifthedefendantdidgenuinelybelieveormaygenuinelyhavebelievedthatheneededtodefend
himselfthejurymustdecidewhethertheforceheusedwasreasonable.Reasonableforcemeansforce
proportionatetothenatureofthethreatthedefendanthonestlybelievedwasposedbyhisadversary.
Ifthedefendantwentwellbeyondwhatwasneededtodefendhimselffromtheforceofferedbyhis
assailant,thatisgoodevidencethatthedefendantactedunreasonably.But,injudgingwhetherthe
defendantactedunreasonably,thejuryshouldhaveregardtothefactthatitisdiffcultforaperson
tomeasurepreciselywhatisneededinresponseand,ifthedefendantdidonlywhathehonestlyand
instinctivelythoughtwasnecessary,thatisstrongevidencethatherespondedreasonably.
Wheretheissueariseswhetherdrinkmayhaveplayedapartinthedefendantscomprehensionofthe
circumstancesthejuryshouldbetold:
Theevidenceisthatthedefendanthadvoluntarilytakendrink.If,whentheyareconsideringthe
circumstancesinwhichthedefendantusedforce,thejuryissurethatthedefendantheldabelief
aboutthosecircumstanceswhichwasmistakenbecausehewasundertheinfuenceofdrink,the
defendantisnotentitledtorelyonthatmistakenbelief.If,therefore,theyaresurethat,hadthe
defendantbeensober,hewouldnothavemadethemistakehedid,theymustjudgehisactionsas
ifhehadbeensober,bothonthequestionwhetherheneededtodefendhimselfand,ifso,onthe
questionwhetherheneededtousetheforcehedid.If,however,thecircumstanceswereinfactsuch
thatthedefendantwasentitledtodefendhimselfashedid(i.e.hewasunderattackorinimminent
dangerofattackandhisresponsewasproportionate),hisdrunkennesswillbeimmaterial.
Whenthereisevidenceofselfdefenceforthejurytoconsiderthejurymustbetold:
Thereisnoburdenonthedefendanttoprovethathewasactinginselfdefence.Theprosecutionmust
provesothatthejuryissurethatdefendantwasnotactinginlawfulselfdefence.
InHarvey
560
twowomenconfrontedoneanotherinthestreet.Afghtensued.Atsomestagethedefendant
admittedlybitVsnose.Herappealwasdismissed.Theissueforthejurywaswhetherthedefendantwas
actinginselfdefence.CCTVevidencedidnotdepictthemomentwhenthebitewasdelivered.MosesLJ
observedthatifthejudgeslegaldirectionhadbeenframedwithinthecontextoftheevidenceinthecase
thejurywouldhavereceivedgreaterassistance.Therewasnoroomformisunderstanding.Therecouldbeno
differencebetweenthefactsasthejuryfoundthemtobeandthefactsasthedefendantbelievedthemto
be.Oncethejuryresolvedthefactstheirtaskwasclear:ifthedefendantbitVwhileshe,thedefendant,had
gainedtheupperhand,selfdefencedidnotrun;if,onthecontrary,shebitVwhileVhadtheupperhand,the
questionwaswhethertheforceusedwasreasonable.
Footnotes
560
[2009]EWCACrim469
2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration self defence
Aswehaveheard,thecomplainantMrAandthedefendantMrBareneighbours.Theysharethecommon
drivewaybetweentheirhouses.Fromtotimetherehavebeendisputeswhenonehasaccusedtheotherof
obstructinghissideofthedrivewithavehicle.Thisiswhatoccurredon12June.Thedefendantcamehome
tofndthatMrAhadparkedhisnewcampervaninthedriveway.Itobstructedhissideandhecouldnot
parkhiscarofftheroad.Theprosecutioncaseisthatthedefendantlosthistemper,marchedtoMrAsfront
doorandcontinuouslyrangthebelluntilitwasansweredbyMrA.AsMrAopenedthedoor,thedefendant
punchedhimtotheface.Theforcewassuffcienttoknockhimtotheground.Thedefendantfollowedup
withtwokickstoMrAshead.AsaresultMrAsufferedablackeye,hethoughtfromthepunch,andbruising
andswellingtothebackofhisheadbehindhisleftearfromthekicks,bothofwhichyouhaveseeninthe
photographs.Thedefendantischargedincount1withassaultoccasioningactualbodilyharmandincount
2withcommonassaultbybattery.Youarenotaskedbytheprosecutiontoreturnguiltyverdictsonboth
counts.Theyarealternatives.TheyarethereforareasonIwillexplaininamoment.
Inordertoprovethatthedefendantcommittedeitheroftheseoffencestheprosecutionmustprovethatthe
defendantusedunlawfulforceonMrA.ThedefendantadmitsthathepunchedMrAtotheface,buthesays
thathispunchwasdeliveredlawfullyinselfdefence.HesaysthatalthoughMrAwenttothegroundhedid
notfollowupwithakickorkicksandMrAmusthavebangedhisheadagainstthedoorframeashewent
down.
The main issue for you to resolve is whether the prosecution has proved, so that you are sure, that the
defendantwasnotactinginlawfulselfdefence.Letmeexplainthequestionsyouneedtoconsider.
AsIhavesaid,itisfortheprosecutiontoprovethatthedefendantwasnotactinginselfdefence;itisnotfor
thedefendanttoprovethathewas.
Apersonwhohonestlybelievesthatitisnecessarytouseforcetodefendhimselfmayusereasonableforceto
doso.Youmaythinkthatinthisrespectthelawfollowsgoodcommonsense.
Sothefrstquestionyouneedtoresolveiswhetherthedefendantdidormayhavebelievedthatheneeded
touseforcetodefendhimself.ThedefendantdeniesthatassoonasMrAopenedthedoorhepunched
him.ThedefendanttoldyouthatwhenheaskedMrAtomovehiscampervan,MrAstartedshoutingand
thenraisedhisfst,sohepunchedhim.Whenthedefendantwasaskedwhyitwasnecessarytouseforce
ratherthanleave,thedefendantsaidhehadnochoice,itwassoquick.Soyoumustresolvethisissue.Are
yousurethatMrAtoldyouthetruthaboutthisconfrontation?Ifyouaresurehedid,therewouldappear
tobenoroomforthedefendanttothinkhewasunderthreat,butthatisforyoutodecide.Ifyouaresure
thatthedefendanthadnohonestbeliefthanheneededtouseforcethatistheendofselfdefenceandyour
verdictwillbeguiltyofcount1andyouneedgonofurther.Ifontheotherhand,youthinkthedefendant
didbelieve,ormayhavebelieved,thatheneededtouseforcetodefendhimselfyoupasstothesecond
question.
A person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself. Reasonable force means proportionate
force. It means not going completely over the top in your response to the threat you honestly think
you face. Here, you may conclude that if the defendant honestly believed he needed to use force
at all, then a punch was a reasonable response to a threat of a punch. As a matter of law, and again
I suggest of common sense, you do not have to wait to be hit before you defend yourself. However,
there is at this stage a second and important issue of fact for you to resolve. Mr A said that when he
1o: defenCes
300
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
felltothegroundhewaskicked.MrsA,hiswife,saidthatherattentionwasdrawntotheconstantringingof
thedoorbell.Shewasinthekitchen.Sheturnedoffthegasstoveandmadeherwaytothefrontdoor.When
shegottherethedoorwasalreadywideopen,herhusbandwascurleduponthefoorandthedefendantkicked
himtothehead.Youagainhavetodecidewhoistellingthetruth.IfyouarenotsurethatMrAwaskicked
whilehewasontheground,thenyouwouldfndthedefendantnotguiltybecauseapunchandnomorewas
reasonable.If,however,youaresurehewaskickedonceormorethanonce,youwillneedtodecidewhether
thatwasproportionateandthereforereasonable,orcompletelyoverthetop.Thelawisthatapersondefending
himselfdoesnothavetojudgetoanicetythedegreeofforceitisnecessarytouseand,ifheonlydidwhathe
honestlyandinstinctivelythoughtwasnecessary,thatisstrongevidencethatwhathedidwasreasonable.
However,whenthedefendantwasaskedabouthisstateofmindinevidence,heagreedthatwhenMrA
wasonthegroundhewasnolongeranythreatandheknewhewasnt;heacceptedthathehadnoneed
tokickMrA;andagreedthatifhehadkickedMrAthatwouldhavebeenoutoforder.
ItfollowsfromwhatIhavesaidthatifyouthinkthedefendantmayhonestlyhavebelievedthatheneeded
todefendhimselfanddidnomorethanpunchMrA,yourverdictwouldbenotguilty.
If,ontheotherhand,youaresurethedefendantdidnothonestlybelieveheneededtodefendhimselfyour
verdictwouldbeguilty.
Finally,ifyouthinkthedefendantmayhavepunchedMrAinself-defencebutyouaresurehewenton
tokickhimwhilehewasontheground,youmustdecidewhetherthatwasareasonableresponse.Ifyou
concludeitwasormayhavebeenareasonableresponsethenyourverdictwouldbenotguilty.Ifyouare
sureitwasnotareasonableresponse,thenyourverdictwilldependuponwhetheryouaresureakickor
kickscausedthebruisingandswellingtothebackofMrAshead.Ifyouaresureitdid,yourverdictwould
beguiltyofcount1,assaultoccasioningactualbodilyharm.Ifyouwerenotsurethatthekickorkicks
causedanybodilyinjurytoMrAyourverdictwouldbenotguiltycount1,butguiltycount2,common
assault.
IhavepreparedawrittenRoutetoVerdictwhichwillhelpyoutoanswerthequestionsintherightorder.If
youdothatyouwillarriveatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
Pleaseanswerquestion1frstandproceedasdirected
Question 1
Didthedefendanthonestlybelievethatheneededtouseforcetodefendhimself?
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantdidnothonestlybelievethatheneededtodefendhimself,verdict
guiltycount1andgonofurther
If you think the defendant may honestly have believed that he needed to defend himself, go to
question2
301
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 2
Didthedefendantusereasonableforcetodefendhimself?SeeNotes1-4below
Ifyouaresuretheforceusedwasunreasonable,gotoquestion3
Ifyouthinkthedefendantmayhaveusedreasonableforce,verdictnotguiltycount1andnotguilty
count2
Question 3
DidakickorkicksdeliveredbythedefendantcausebruisingandswellingtoMrAshead?
IfyouaresurethatakickorkickscausedbruisingandswellingtoMrAshead,verdictguiltycount1
andgonofurther
IfyouarenotsurethatakickorkickscausedbruisingandswellingtoMrAshead,verdictnotguilty
count1butguiltycount2
Note:
1. Reasonable force is force which is proportionate to the threat the defendant honestly
believed he faced.
2. The defendant did not have to be exact in measuring the degree of force needed to defend
himself. If he did only what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary, that is strong
evidence that what he did was reasonable.
3. If you are sure the defendant went completely over the top in response to the threat he
thought he faced, the force he used was not reasonable.
4. If all the defendant did was punch Mr A in self defence, that was reasonable force; if you are
sure the defendant also kicked Mr A on the ground, ask whether that was reasonable in the
circumstances as Mr A thought them to be.
Illustration self defence - drink taken claim of honest and instinctive reaction - offence requiring
specifc intent
Thecomplainant,V,toldyouthathewasstandingatthebar,chattingtohisfriendAaboutfootball,when
he was struck from the side with a beer glass. The glass fractured and caused several deep cuts to the
rightsideofVsneckandface.ItisacceptedthatthedefendantwoundedV.Thedefendantsevidencewas
thathethoughtVcalledhimawanker.HeaskedVwhathemeantbyit.HesaidVmadeamovement
whichcausedhimtothinkhewasabouttobepunched.Thedefendantdemonstratedwhathemeant.He
demonstratedVliftinghisrightarmfrombelowthebarwithhisfstclenched.Thedefendantimmediately
struckout,forgettingthathehadtheglassinhishand.Vwasaskedaboutthisinevidence.Hesaidhewas
notevenawareofthedefendantinthebar.Hedidnotcallhimanyname.Hewaswithdrawinghiswallet
fromhisbackpockettopayfordrinksandthatmusthavebeenobvioustothedefendantifhewaslooking.
AagreedthatVhadjustordereddrinks.TheyweretalkingaboutLiverpoolfootballclub.Vmadenoremark
to the defendant that he heard and he said that he was unaware of any sudden movement by V. The
shatteringglassagainstVsfacecame,hesaid,outoftheblue.
1o: defenCes
302
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
AsIhavetoldyoutheprosecutionmustprovesitscase.Thatincludesproofthatthedefendantwasacting
unlawfully.Thedefendantscaseisthathewasactinginselfdefence.Ifhewas,thedefendantwasacting
lawfully.Itisnotforthedefendanttoprovethatheactedlawfullyinselfdefence,butfortheprosecution
toprovethathedidnot.If,therefore,youconsiderthatthedefendantwasormayhavebeenactingin
reasonableselfdefenceyoumustfndhimnotguiltyofbothcount1(woundingwithintent)andcount2
(wounding).
Anumberofissueshavebeenraisedintheevidence.Iwill,whenIhavecompletedmydirections,handyou
anotewhichwillguideyouthroughthequestionsyouneedtoresolveinordertoarriveataverdict.First,let
meexplainwhatthelawmeansbyselfdefence:
Ifyouhonestlybelievethatyouareunderattackorthatyouareinimminentdangerofattackfromanother
person, you are entitled to use reasonable force to defend yourself. This defnition contains two main
elements.Thefrststageofyourdeliberationswillconcernthedefendantsbeliefandthesecondstage,ifyou
reachit,thereasonablenessofhisactions.
Stage 1
Thedefendantsaysthathefearedanimmediateattackandthisiswhatcausedhimtoreactashedid.He
wasaskedincrossexaminationwhetherhesupportedafootballteam.HesaidhesupportedManchester
United.HeagreedthatVwouldnothaveknownthat.Hecouldnotrecall,hesaid,whetherheoverheardV
talkingaboutLiverpool.Thedefendantdeniedthesuggestionmadebytheprosecutionthathelashedout
becauseofhisstrongdislikeofLiverpoolsupporters.If,havingconsideredtheevidence,youaresurethatthe
defendantsblowwaspurelyaggressiveandhadnothingtodowithanymovementbyV,youwouldnot
bedealingwithacaseofselfdefenceatall.If,however,youthinkthedefendantdidbelieveormayhave
believed,evenifhewasmistaken,thathewasabouttobeattacked,hewasentitledtouseforcetoresistit.
CounselfortheprosecutionaskedthedefendantwhetherhecouldhavemadeamistakeaboutVsmovement
toretrievehiswalletfromhisbackpocket.Heconcededthatitwaspossible,buthedidnotthinkhehad.He
wasaskedhowmuchalcoholhehadconsumedthatnight.Hesaidhehadtwocansbeforeheleftthehouse
and4pintsofStrongbowinthebar.Askedwhetherhisjudgementmayhavebeenaffectedbytheamount
ofalcoholhehadtaken,hesaid,no,heknewwhathewasdoingandwasjustmerry.
Injudgingwhetherthedefendanthonestlybelievedormayhavebelievedthathewasabouttobeattacked
youshouldconsiderwhetherhehadanyreasonablegroundsforthatbelief.Ifyouaresuretherewereno
suchgrounds,thatconclusionmayaffectyourdecisionwhetherthedefendantheldthebeliefatall.Thatisa
questionoffactforyoutoresolve.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantmayhaveheldagenuinebutmistaken
beliefthathewasabouttobeattacked,youwillneednexttoconsidertheeffectofalcoholuponhim.The
lawdoesnotpermitthedefendanttorelyontheeffectofhisownvoluntaryintoxication.Ifyouconcludeso
thatyouaresurethatifhehadbeensoberthedefendantwouldnothavemisunderstoodthesituationhe
faced,andwouldhaverealisedthatnoforcewasnecessary,thenselfdefenceisexcluded.
303
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Therefore,youpasstostage2onlyif:
1. youdecidethatthedefendantmayhonestly(andrightly)havebelievedthathewasabouttobe
attacked;or
2. youdecidethatthedefendantmayhonestly(butyouaresure,mistakenly)havebelievedhewas
abouttobeattacked,andyouconcludethathemayhavemadethesamemistakeifhehadbeen
sober.
Stage 2
Forceusedinselfdefenceislawfulonlyifitwasreasonable.Reasonableforceisforcewhichisproportionate
tothethreatthedefendantbelievedhefaced.WasitproportionatetostrikeVwithaglassifVdidraisehis
armintendingtopunchthedefendant?Thedefendantsaidthatwhenheswungouthedidnotappreciate
thattheglasswasinhishand.Youwillhavetojudgewhetherhewastellingthetruthaboutthat.Ifyou
concludethathemayhavebeentellingthetruth,itwouldbeasignifcantfnding.Itwouldbesignifcant
becauseyoumustjudgethereasonablenessofthedefendantsreactionaccordingtohisownunderstanding
ofthesituation.Ifhereactedsuddenly,honestlyandinstinctively,andwithoutthoughtfortheglass,that
wouldbestrongevidencethatwhathedidwasproportionatetotheattackhefearedandwas,therefore,
reasonable.If,however,youconclude,sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendantknewthathewasswinging
aglasstowardsVshead,itisthereasonablenessofthatactionwhichyoumustjudge.Ifyouaresureitwas
unreasonable,selfdefenceisagainexcluded.
Unlessyoucanexcludeselfdefence,sothatyouaresure,youmustfndthedefendantnotguiltyofboth
count1andcount2.
If you do exclude self defence, you should turn next to the question of intention. You must judge the
defendants intention from the evidence of the surrounding circumstances including the nature of the
defendantsactionsand,ofcourse,hisownevidence.Hesaidhehadnointentionofcausingtheserious
woundsheadmitsresultedfromhisaction.Whenyouarejudgingthedefendantsintenttheamountofdrink
heconsumedisstillrelevantbutinadifferentway.Drinkisnotanexcuseforunlawfulviolence.Anintention
formedindrinkisjustasmuchanintentionasanintentionformedwhensober.Somepeoplebecomedocile
indrink;othersbecomeaggressive.Youneedtoconsiderhowdrinkaffectedthedefendant.Diditmakehim
aggressive;diditcloudhisjudgment;diditcausehimtoactwithoutthinking?Ifthedefendantbecame
aggressiveindrinkand,inthemomentheswungtheglass,heintendedtocausereallyseriousinjury,heis
guiltyofcount1.Ifyouarenotsureheintendedtocausereallyseriousinjury,heisnotguiltyofcount1,but
heisguiltyofcount2.ThereasonisthatthedefendantacceptsthatheknewtheblowheaimedatVwould
causesomeharm.Thelawisthatthatissuffcienttoproveguiltofcount2.
Questionsoffactare,asIhaveemphasised,foryoutoresolve,butyouwillseethesenseofthedirectionIam
abouttogiveyou.Youcouldnotconvictthedefendantofcount1,woundingwithintent,unlessyouwere
surethedefendantintendedtocausereallyseriousinjurywiththeglass.
IhavepreparedawrittenRoutetoVerdictwhichwillhelpyoutoanswerthesequestionsintherightorder.If
youdothat,youwillarriveatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
1o: defenCes
304
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration Route to verdict
Pleaseanswerquestion1frstandproceedstrictlyasdirected
Question 1
DidthedefendantdeliberatelyaimablowatVwhichinfactcausedawound?
[STAGE 1] Question 2
Whenheaimedtheblow,didthedefendanthonestlybelievethatheneededtouseforcetodefendhimself
fromanimminentattackbyV?
Ifyouaresurethedefendantdidnothonestlybelievethatheneededtodefendhimself,selfdefenceis
excludedandproceedtoquestion8
Ifyouconsiderthatthedefendantmayhonestlyhavebelievedthatheneededtouseforcetodefend
himself,proceedtoquestion3
Question 3
Wasthedefendantsbeliefmistaken?
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantsbeliefwasmistaken,proceedtoquestion4
Ifyouarenotsurethedefendantsbeliefwasmistaken,proceedtoquestion5
Question 4
Wouldthedefendanthavemadethesamemistakeifhehadbeensober?
Ifyouaresurehewouldnothavemadethesamemistakeifhehadbeensober,selfdefenceisexcluded
andproceedtoquestion8
If you conclude he would or may have made the same mistake if he had been sober, proceed to
question5
[STAGE 2] Question 5
WhenthedefendantaimedtheblowatV,washeawareoftheglassinhishand?
Ifyouaresurethedefendantwasawareoftheglassinhishand,proceedtoquestion7
Ifyouarenotsurethedefendantwasawareoftheglassinhishand,proceedtoquestion6
Question 6
Was the force the defendant thought he was using (i.e. without the glass) proportionate and, therefore,
reasonableinthecircumstances?
If you are sure the force the defendant thought he was using was unreasonable, self defence is
excludedandproceedtoquestion8
Ifyouarenotsuretheforcethedefendantthoughthewasusingwasunreasonable,theforceused
waslawfulandverdictnotguiltycount1andcount2
30S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 7
Wastheforceusedbythedefendant(aimingablowwiththeglassinhishand,atVshead)proportionate
and,therefore,reasonableinthecircumstances?
If you are sure the force the defendant used was disproportionate and unreasonable, proceed to
question8
Ifyouarenotsuretheforcethedefendantusedwasdisproportionateandunreasonable,theforce
usedwaslawfulandverdictnotguiltycount1andcount2
Question 8
WhenthedefendantaimedtheblowatVdidheintendtocauseVreallyseriousinjury?
If you are sure he did intend really serious injury, verdict guilty count 1 and proceed no further
See Note 1 below
Ifyouarenotsurehedidintendreallyseriousinjury,verdictnotguiltycount1andguiltycount2
Note 1:
You would fnd the defendant guilty of count 1 only if you were sure the defendant was not
acting in self defence and he intended to cause really serious injury with the glass.
You would fnd the defendant guilty of count 2 if you were sure the defendant was not acting
in self defence, but you were not sure he had the intent to cause really serious injury with the
glass.
If you have concluded that the defendant was unaware or may have been unaware of the glass
in his hand (Question 5 above), you could not conclude that the defendant intended to cause
really serious injury. Your verdict would be not guilty count 1.
561
Sources
Archbold:19-39/47,19-187,17-16;Blackstone:A3.31/38
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
561
Section76(4)providesIfDclaimstohaveheldaparticularbeliefasregardstheexistenceofanycircumstancesheisentitledto
relyonthatbeliefwhetheritwasreasonableornotbut,bysection76(5),ifhisbeliefwasattributabletovoluntaryintoxication,
hemaynotrelyuponit.
Thequestionariseswhetherthedefendantsclaimnottohavebeenaware,whenheaimedhisblow,oftheglassinhishand,
constitutesaclaimtoholdaparticularbeliefasregardstheexistenceofanycircumstanceswithinthemeaningofsection76(4).
Ifitdoes,hemaynotrelyonthebeliefifitwasattributabletothedrinkhehadtaken.Suchafndingwouldhaveasignifcant
effectonthejudgementwhethertheforceusedwasreasonable.
TheIllustrationisdraftedonthefootingthatsection76(4)(honestbutmistakenbelief)doesnotapplytounawarenessofthe
glassbecauseunawarenessistheabsenceofbeliefandthedefendantisnotclaimingthathepositivelybelievedhehadnoglassin
hishand.
Thereisanotherreasonwhy,intheIllustration,theadditionofafurtherstepinconsiderationoftheeffectofalcoholis
unnecessaryandwouldbeconfusingtothejury.Ifthedefendantwouldhavebeenawareoftheglassinhishandbutforthe
alcoholhehadconsumed,thejurywouldberequiredtoassumeheknewtheglasswasinhishandwhendecidingwhether
heactedreasonably.Ifsuchanassumptionwasrequireditwouldeffectivelyremovefromthemthedecisionwhether(section
76(7)(b))thedefendantactedhonestlyandinstinctively.Itissuggestedthatitcannothavebeentheintentionofthesection
76(5)todeprivethedefendantofthejurysuninhibiteddecisionundersection76(7)(b).
30o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Duress
Introduction
A. Duress by Threats
Ifanoffenceiscommittedunderduressthedefendantisexcusedfromcriminalliability.
562
Oncethe
defendantraisesasuffcientcaseofduressintheevidence,theburdenofdisprovingduresstothecriminal
standardrestsupontheprosecution.Thedefenceisnotavailabletothosechargedwithmurder(whetheras
principaloraiderandabettor,counsellororprocurer)
563
attemptedmurder
564
and,possibly,certainoffences
oftreason.
Requirements of the defence
Thepreciseambitandrequirementsofthedefencehaveemergedpiecemealduringthelast30yearsorso.
TheywereexplainedbyLordBinghaminHasan
565
:
1. Thethreatrelieduponwasathreatofseriousinjuryordeath;
566
2. Theharmthreatenedwasdirectedatthedefendant,amemberofhisimmediatefamily,someone
closetothedefendant,orsomeoneforwhosesafetythedefendantreasonablyregardedhimselfas
responsible;
567
3. Thedefendantgenuinelyandreasonablybelievedthatthethreat,butforhiscompliance,wouldbe
carriedoutimmediatelyoralmostimmediately;
4. Thethreat,orthedefendantsreasonablebeliefinthethreat,wasthedirectcauseofthedefendants
actions;
5. Areasonablepersoninthedefendantssituationwouldhavebeendriventoactasthedefendantdid.
Areasonablepersonistobetreatedassober,ofordinaryfrmness,ofthesameageandgenderasthe
defendant,andotherwisesharingthedefendantsrelevantcharacteristics;
568
6. Therewasnoactiontoevadetheeffectsofthethreatwhichthedefendantcouldreasonablyhave
takeninthecircumstances;but
7. Ifapersonvoluntarilybecomesorremainsassociatedwithothersengagedincriminalactivityina
situationwhereheknowsoroughtreasonablytoknowthathemaybethesubjectofcompulsionby
themortheirassociates,hecannotrelyonthedefenceofduresstoexcuseanycriminalactwhichheis
thereaftercompelledtocommitbythem.InAli
569
theCourtofAppealexplainedthatwhilethosewho
maysubjectadefendanttocompulsionwouldusuallybethoseengagedincriminalactivity,itwasnot
Footnotes
562
DPPforNorthernIrelandv.Lynch[1975]AC653(HL)perLordWilberforceatpages679-680
563
Howe[1987]AC417(HL)(overrulingLynchontheapplicabilityofthedefenceofduresstosecondarypartiestomurder)
564
Gotts[1992]2AC412(HL)
565
[2005]2AC467,[2005]UKHL22at21
566
Querywhetherthethreatofimprisonmentwouldsuffce(Steane[1947]KB997);threatofpsychologicalharmwillnot(Baker
[1997]CrimLR497;Quayle[2005]1WLR3642)
567
Itissuggestedthiswouldincludesomeoneimmediatelyaffectedbythethreat(e.g.handoverthemoneyorIwillshootthis
customer)
568
Seebelow
569
[2008]EWCACrim716

307
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
thenatureoftheactivitywhichmatteredbutthepresenceoftheriskofcompulsionfromthosewith
whomhewasassociating.
570
Relevant characteristics
InBowen
571
theCourtofAppealexaminedthequestionwhatrelevantcharacteristicsmightbeattributed
tothereasonablemanforthepurposeofapplyingtheobjectivetests(i)whetherthedefendanthelda
reasonablebeliefthatarelevantthreatwasmadeandwouldbecarriedoutand(ii)whetherareasonable
personwouldhaverespondedasthedefendantdid.Stuart-SmithLJsaid
572
:
Whatprinciplesaretobederivedfromtheseauthorities?Wethinktheyareasfollows:
(1) The mere fact that the accused is more pliable, vulnerable, timid or susceptible to threats than
a normal person are not characteristics with which it is legitimate to invest the reasonable/ordinary
personforthepurposeofconsideringtheobjectivetest.
(2)Thedefendantmaybeinacategoryofpersonswhothejurymaythinklessabletoresistpressure
than people not within that category. Obvious examples are age, where a young person may well
notbesorobustasamatureone;possiblysex,thoughmanywomenwoulddoubtlessconsiderthey
hadasmuchmoralcouragetoresistpressureasmen;pregnancy,wherethereisaddedfearforthe
unbornchild;seriousphysicaldisability,whichmayinhibitselfprotection;recognisedmentalillnessor
psychiatriccondition,suchasposttraumaticstressdisorderleadingtolearnedhelplessness.
(3)Characteristicswhichmayberelevantinconsideringprovocation,becausetheyrelatetothenature
oftheprovocation,itselfwillnotnecessarilyberelevantincasesofduress.Thushomosexualitymaybe
relevanttoprovocationiftheprovocativewordsorconductarerelatedtothischaracteristic;itcannot
be relevant in duress, since there is no reason to think that homosexuals are less robust in resisting
threatsofthekindthatarerelevantinduresscases.
(4) Characteristics due to self-induced abuse, such as alcohol, drugs or glue-sniffng, cannot be
relevant.
(5)Psychiatricevidencemaybeadmissibletoshowthattheaccusedissufferingfromsomemental
illness, mental impairment or recognised psychiatric condition provided persons generally suffering
from such condition may be more susceptible to pressure and threats and thus to assist the jury in
decidingwhetherareasonablepersonsufferingfromsuchaconditionmighthavebeenimpelledtoact
asthedefendantdid.Itisnotadmissiblesimplytoshowthatinthedoctorsopinionanaccused,who
isnotsufferingfromsuchillnessorcondition,isespeciallytimid,suggestibleorvulnerabletopressure
andthreats.Norismedicalopinionadmissibletobolsterorsupportthecredibilityoftheaccused.
(6)Wherecounselwishestosubmitthattheaccusedhassomecharacteristicwhichfallswithin(2)
above,thismustbemadeplaintothejudge.Thequestionmayariseinrelationtotheadmissibilityof
medicalevidenceofthenaturesetoutin(5).Ifso,thejudgewillhavetoruleatthatstage.
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
570
ThetrialjudgesdirectionThedefenceofduressdoesnotapplyifthedefendantchoosesvoluntarilytoassociatewithothers
whereheoughttoforeseethathemightbesubjectedtocompulsionbythreatsofviolencewasapproved
571
[1996]2CrAppR157,[1997]1WLR372
572
At[1997]1WLRpages379-380
308
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
There may, however, be no medical evidence, or, as in this case, medical evidence may have been
introducedforsomeotherpurpose,e.g.tochallengetheadmissibilityorweightofaconfession.In
suchacasecounselmustraisethequestionbeforespeechesintheabsenceofthejury,sothatthe
judgecanrulewhethertheallegedcharacteristiciscapableofbeingrelevant.Ifherulesthatitis,then
hemustleaveittothejury.
(7)Intheabsenceofsomedirectionfromthejudgeastowhatcharacteristicsarecapableofbeing
regardedasrelevant,wethinkthatthedirectionapprovedinGraham
573
withoutmorewillnotbeas
helpfulasitmightbe,sincethejurymaybetempted,especiallyifthereisevidence,astherewasin
thiscase,relatingtosuggestibilityandvulnerability,tothinkthatthesearerelevant.Inmostcasesitis
probablyonlytheageandsexoftheaccusedthatiscapableofbeingrelevant.Ifso,thejudgeshould,
ashedidinthiscase,confnethecharacteristicsinquestiontothese.
Howaretheseprinciplestobeappliedinthiscase?MissLevittaccepts,rightlyinouropinion,thatthe
evidencethattheappellantwasabnormallysuggestibleandavulnerableindividualisirrelevant.But
shesubmitsthatthefactthathehad,ormayhavehad,alowIQof68isrelevantsinceitmightinhibit
hisabilitytoseektheprotectionofthepolice.Wedonotagree.WedonotseehowlowIQ,shortof
mentalimpairmentormentaldefectiveness,canbesaidtobeacharacteristicthatmakesthosewho
haveitlesscourageousandlessabletowithstandthreatsandpressure...
InAntar
574
theCourtappliedStuart-SmithLJstestfortheadmissibilityofexpertevidencegoingtotheissue
ofmentalimpairmentormentaldefectiveness.ThedefendanthadafullscaleIQscoreof51andwas
abnormallysuggestibleevenamongapeergroupoflearningdisabledoffenders.Inthosecircumstancesthe
evidenceofapsychologistshouldhavebeenadmittedtoassistthejuryuponarelevantcharacteristic.
B. Duress of Circumstances
Duressofcircumstancesis,incommonwithduressbythreats,aspeciesofthedefenceofnecessity.
575
It
isavailableforalloffencessavemurder,attemptedmurderandsomeformsoftreason.Although,asfrst
identifed,thedefenceappliedtoroadtraffcoffences,thereisnoreasoninprinciplewhyitshouldnotapply
toallotheroffencessavethoseidentifed.
576
Thetest,suitablyadapted,isthesameasforduressbythreats.
InMartin
577
thedefendantdrovehiscarwhiledisqualifed.Hedidso,hesaid,undertheduressofhiswifes
suicidalcondition.InajudgmentofthecourtdeliveredbySimonBrownJitwassaid:

Footnotes
573
[1982]1WLR294Atpage300LordLaneCJexpressedtheappropriatedirectioninGrahamscaseasfollows:TheCrownhaving
concededthattheissueofduresswasopentotheappellantandwasraisedontheevidence,thecorrectapproachonthefactsof
thiscasewouldhavebeenasfollows.(1)Wasthedefendant,ormayhehavebeen,impelledtoactashedidbecause,asaresult
ofwhathereasonablybelievedKinghadsaidordone,hehadgoodcausetofearthatifhedidnotsoactKingwouldkillhimor
(ifthisistobeadded)causehimseriousphysicalinjury?(2)Ifso,havetheprosecutionmadethejurysurethatasoberperson
ofreasonablefrmness,sharingthecharacteristicsofthedefendant,wouldnothaverespondedtowhateverhereasonably
believedKingsaidordidbytakingpartinthekilling?Thefactthatadefendantswilltoresisthasbeenerodedbythevoluntary
consumptionofdrinkordrugsorbothisnotrelevanttothistest.
574
[2004]EWCACrim2708
575
Conway[1989]QB290,88CrAppR159
576
Pommell[1995]2CrAppR607
577
[1989]88CrAppR343(CA)
30
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Theprinciplesmaybesummarisedthus.First,Englishlawdoes,inextremecircumstances,recognisea
defenceofnecessity.Mostcommonlythisdefencearisesasduress,thatispressureupontheaccusedswill
fromthewrongfulthreatsorviolenceofanother.Equally,however,itcanarisefromotherobjectivedangers
threateningtheaccusedorothers.Arisingthusitisconvenientlycalledduressofcircumstances.
Secondly,thedefenceisavailableonlyif,fromanobjectivestandpoint,theaccusedcanbesaidtobeacting
reasonablyandproportionatelyinordertoavoidathreatofdeathorseriousinjury.
Thirdly,assumingthedefencetobeopentotheaccusedonhisaccountofthefacts,theissueshouldbe
lefttothejury,whoshouldbedirectedtodeterminethesetwoquestions:frst,wastheaccused,ormayhe
havebeen,impelledtoactashedidbecauseasaresultofwhathereasonablybelievedtobethesituation
hehadgoodcausetofearthatotherwisedeathorseriousphysicalinjurywouldresult?Second,ifso,may
asoberpersonofreasonablefrmness,sharingthecharacteristicsoftheaccused,haverespondedtothat
situationbyactingastheaccusedacted?Iftheanswertoboththosequestionswasyes,thenthejurywould
acquit:thedefenceofnecessitywouldhavebeenestablished.
Therehasbeenjudicialdebatewhetherthecircumstancesunderwhichthedefendantconcludedhehad
toactwereashehonestly,orashehonestlyandreasonably,believedthemtobe.
578
Havingregardtothe
observationsofLordBinghaminHasan
579
itseemsunlikelythatthetestforduressofcircumstanceswillbe
construedmorefavourablytotheaccusedthanthetestforduressbythreats.Inotherwords,thedefendants
beliefinthethreatcreatedbythecircumstancesmustbegenuineandreasonable.InDPPv.Bell
580
the
DivisionalCourtseemedtoacceptthatthethreateningcircumstanceshadtobethedirectcauseofthe
accusedsactionsandthedefencewouldnotbeavailableifthedefendantwouldhaveactedashedidinany
event.InPommell
581
theCourtofAppealheldthatwheretheoffenceisacontinuingone,asinpossessionofa
frearm,theobligationofthedefendantwastodesistfromcommittingtheoffenceassoonashereasonably
could.
Illustration duress by threats expert psychologists evidence of impaired mental functioning
opportunity to escape threats - whether threats caused the defendants unlawful acts - associating
with persons who may subject the defendant to compulsion
Thedefendantadmitsthatheconveyed5kilosofcrackcocainetoadrugdealerinSheffeld.Hisdefenceis
thathewasactingunderduress.Letmefrstremindyouoftheevidenceuponwhichthedefendantrelies.I
shallthenexplainhowshouldapproachtheissueofduress.
Thedefendanttoldyouthathehadbeenacrackaddictfor18months.Hissupplierwasamanthedefendant
refusedtoname.IshallcallhimX.ThedefendantsaidthathehadrunupadebtwithXofabout500
whichhewasunabletorepay.About12monthsagoXtoldhimthathecouldworkoffthedebtbyrunning
errandsforhim.Thismeantdeliveringdrugsandcollectingmoney.Hewasnottheonlyone.Heknewothers
whowereinasimilarposition.Thedefendantcontinuedtoreceive
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
578
DPPv.Rogers[1998]CrimLR3422;Martin(DavidPaul)[2000]2CrAPPR42;Cairns[1999]2CrAppR137
579
Supra
580
[1992]RTR335
581
Supra
310
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
crackcocaineforhispersonalconsumptionandhenevermanagedtorepayhisdebt,whichwentupto
1,000.Xtoldthedefendantthathewouldhavetotakelongertripsandcarrygreaterquantities.After
thefrstsuchtripthedefendantdecidedthathecouldnotriskanyfurthererrandsforXandtoldhimso.X
threatenedthatifherefusedhewouldhavetorepaythedebtimmediatelyorbekilled.Thiswasathreat
whichthedefendantsaidhetookseriouslybecausehewasawarethatXandhisassociateswerereputedto
havekilledbyshootingatleastoneotherpersonwhohadbeenunabletorepayalargedebt.Askedforhow
longhehadknownofXsreputation,thedefendantsaidheknewofitafterhestartedtopurchasedrugs
fromhimbutbeforehestartedworkingforhim.
Burden and standard of proof
Therearecircumstancesinwhichanaccusedperson,althoughadmittingthatheintentionallycommitteda
seriousoffence,canbeexcusedbythelaw.Itwillnotsurpriseyoutolearnthatthetestwhetherthedefence
ofduressappliestothecircumstancesofthecaseisstrict.Althoughduresshasbeenraisedintheevidence,it
isnotforthedefendanttoproveit.Itisfortheprosecutiontoexcludeduresssothatyouaresure.Youneed
toconsideraseriesofquestions.Ishallhandyouawrittennotecontainingthosequestionsinamomentand
weshallgothroughthemtogetherbut,frst,letmeexpandonthelaw.
Threats
Thefrstquestionforyoutoconsideriswhetherthedefendantwasthreatened,ashesays,withdeathifhe
refusedtocarryouttheoffence.
582
Theonlyevidenceofthethreatisthatofthedefendanthimself.Hehas
beenchallengedaboutitbytheprosecutionduringhisevidence.Itwassuggestedtohimthatthiswasa
convenientwayofavoidingaconvictionforpossessionwithintenttosupplyclassAdrugsand,ifitwastrue,
hewouldhavegivenamuchfulleraccountofitinhisinterviewundercaution.Thedefendanttoldyouthat
hewasfrightenedthenandisstillfrightenedofsayinganythingwhichmightgetbacktohistormentors.This
iswhyhehasrefusedtonamethem.Youmustdecidewhetherthedefendantslifewasthreatenedornot.If
youaresureitwasnot,thatistheendofduressandyourverdictwouldbeguilty.If,however,youacceptthe
defendantsevidencethathislifewasthreatened,oryouconcludethathemayhavebeenthreatenedashe
says,thenyoushouldproceedtothesecondquestion.
Genuine and reasonable belief
Thesecondquestioniswhetherthedefendantgenuinelyandreasonablybelievedthatifhedidnotactashe
wastoldthethreattokillhimwouldbeimmediatelyorimminentlycarriedout.Thedefendanthastoldyou
whyhethoughthislifewasinimminentdangerifherefusedtoactasinstructed.However,becausehehas
refusedtonameeitherX,oranyoneassociatedwithhim,orthevictimwhoisreputedtohavebeenkilled
onXsinstructions,ithasnotbeenpossibleforanyconfrmatoryenquiriestobemade.Astowhetherthe
defendantpersonallyandreasonablybelievedhislifewasinimminentdanger,yourdecisionmustdepend
uponyourviewofthedefendantsown
Footnotes
582
Notethatinthisillustrationtheissueofareasonablebeliefintheexistenceofthethreatdoesnotarise.Eitherthethreatwas
madeoritwasnot.Inothercasesitmaybenecessarytoaddthewordsorreasonablybelievedthathewasthreatenedwith
seriousinjuryordeath.
311
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
evidence.Ifyouaresurethatwhenhecommittedtheoffencethedefendantdidnotbelievethat,unlesshe
compliedwiththethreat,hewasinimmediateorimminentdangerofdeath,duressisagainexcluded.If,on
theotherhand,youconcludethedefendantmayhaveheldthatbelief,younexthavetojudgewhetherit
wasabeliefreasonablyheldinthecircumstances.
Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantmayhaveheldthatbeliefforthereasonshehasgiven,thenyouarelikely
alsotofndthatitwasabeliefreasonablyheld.
Threat caused the defendant to act
The third question is whether it really was the threat which caused the defendant to act as he did. The
defenceofduressisavailableonlywhenthedirectcauseofthedefendantsunlawfulactwasthethreaton
whichherelies.Ifhewouldhavecarriedouttheactwithorwithoutthethreat,thenduressdoesnotapply.
Itispointedouttoyoubytheprosecutionthatthedefendantadmitsmakingapreviousdeliverywhileunder
nothreatfromX.Counselforthedefendanthasarguedthatyoushouldacceptthedefendantsaccount.It
issuggestedthatifyouthinkitmaybetruethatthedefendanthadresolvednottomakefurtherdeliveries,
theremusthavebeenacompellingreasonwhyhewentontodoso.
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantwouldhavecarriedoutthedeliverywhetherornothewasthreatened,
forexamplebecausehewantedthepaymentindrugsormoney,duressisexcluded.If,onthecontrary,you
concludethatthethreatwasormayhavebeentherealreasonforthedelivery,youshouldproceedtothe
fourthquestion.
Reasonable person driven to act as the defendant did
Peopleinthedefendantspositionareexpectedtobeordinarilyrobust.Thefourthquestionis,therefore,
whetherareasonablepersonplacedinthedefendantssituationwouldhavebeendrivenbythethreatto
actasthedefendantdid.Areasonablepersonis,forthispurpose,asoberpersonofordinaryfrmness,of
thesameageandgenderasthedefendant,andwithsuchotherofthedefendantscharacteristicsasare
relevanttohisabilitytowithstandorevadethethreatandobeythelaw.Thecharacteristicsofthedefendant
whicharerelevantconcernhisparticularlylowlevelofintellectualability.
Defendants characteristics
You heard evidence from a clinical psychologist, Dr A, that she had interviewed the defendant on two
occasions.Onthesecond,shecarriedoutaseriesofteststoascertainhowthedefendantcompared,inhis
intellectualfunctioning,withthepopulationgenerally.Inshort,thedefendanthasanextremelylowIQ.
HisfullscaleIQscorewas55.Hiscognitivefunctioningisatasignifcantlyimpairedlevel.Evenamong
peoplewithhisownlevelofintelligenceandfunctioningheismuchmoresuggestiblethanmost.Thismeans
thatheislikelytoalterhisresponsestoquestionsiftheyareputinaleadingform.Hetakesthelineofleast
resistance.Alsorelevantisthedefendantsownevidence.Thedefendantwasaskedabouthisachievements
atschool.HetoldyouhehadacquiredagradeDinGCSEEnglishgrammar,buthecouldnotrecallany
others.Hehadheldajobasashelffllerandtrolleycollectoratasupermarket.Heheldadrivinglicenceand
hadbeenadeliverydriverwhenhefrstbecameaddictedtodrugs.Heagreedthatwhenemployedasa
driverhehadtospeaktocustomersandobtainreceiptsforhisdeliverieswhichhehadtoproducewhenhe
returnedtothedepot.
1o: defenCes
312
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thequestionyouneedtoresolveis:Mightapersonofthedefendantsageandgender,withhisimpaired
levelofintellectualabilityandunderstanding,havebeendriventodoasthedefendantdid,orareyousure
thatareasonablepersonwiththedefendantslevelofintellectualabilityandunderstandingwouldhave
foundandtakenadvantageofanopportunitytoescapethethreat?
Opportunity to avoid threat
First,youneedtoconsidertheeventsofthepreviousday.Thedefendantagreedthathewasnotrequired
thereandthentotaketheholdallanddeliverit.Havingagreedtomakethedeliveryhehadtwentyfour
hourswithinwhichtomakehimselfscarce.Instead,hereportedtoXat8amonthefollowingday.The
defendantacceptsthatovernighthecouldhavesurrenderedhimselfatapolicestationorotherwiseavoided
thepeoplewhowerethreateninghim.Thedefendantsaidthathedidthinkaboutitbutdecidedtodoas
hewastoldbecausehewasscared.This,suggeststheprosecution,wasthefrstopportunityavailableto
thedefendanttoresistortoevadethethreatmadetohim.Itisnotbeingsuggestedthatthedefendantdid
notunderstandthathehadthechancetoescapebutthathewastoofrightenedtodoso.Youwillneedto
considerwhetherapersonofreasonablefrmnesswouldhavetakentheopportunitywhichthedefendant
acknowledgesherecognised.
Second,considerthejourneytoSheffeld.Thedefendantwasunaccompaniedinacarbeforehewasstopped
bythepolice.Hewasinpossessionofamobiletelephone.Hehadreceivedonecallduringthecourseof
thejourney.Thatcallwastracedtoamobilephoneregisteredtoawomanwhosaidthephonehadbeen
usedbyanotherpersonwhosherefusedtoname.Askedwhatthearrangementwas,thedefendantsaidin
evidencethathehadbeentoldtoreporttothesamenumberimmediatelyhehadmadehisdelivery.That
wouldhavetakenhimanothertwohoursorso.Askedwhyhedidnottelephonethepoliceorstopatanyof
themanypolicestationsbetweenLondonandSheffeld,thedefendantrepliedthatitdidnotoccurtohim.
Heagreedthatifithadoccurredtohimhecouldeasilyhavemadeacalltothepoliceorgonetoapolice
station.Whenpressed,thedefendantadmittedthathemusthavethoughtaboutitbutclaimedthatthe
policewouldnothavebeenabletoprotecthimanyway.Xhadwaysandmeansofgettingtohimwherever
hewas.Ifthiswasthedefendantsstateofmindhe,forthesecondtime,doesnotseemtobeclaiming
thathedidnotunderstandtheopportunityavailabletohimbutthathewastoofrightenedtotakeit.The
questioniswhetheryouaresureapersonofreasonablefrmnesswouldhavetakenit.
IfyouaresurethatthereasonablepersonIhavedescribedwouldhaveevadedthethreat,duressisdisproved
andyouwouldfndthedefendantguilty.If,ontheotherhand,youconcludethatsuchareasonableman
maynot,throughfear,havetakentheopportunitytoescapethethreat,youshouldconsiderthelastofthe
testswhichapplytoduress.
Awareness of risk of association
Ifapersonvoluntarilybecomesorremainsassociatedwithotherswhenheknowsoroughtreasonablyto
knowthathemaybethesubjectofcompulsionbythemortheirassociates,hecannotrelyonthedefenceof
duresstoexcuseanycriminalactwhich,thereafter,theycompelhimtodo.
Onhisownaccount,thedefendantbecameinvolvedintheunlawfultradeindrugswhenhefrststarted
workingoffhisdebttoX.HeagreedthatheknewofXsreputationbeforeworkingforX.Heagreedheknew
that,ifhegotintodebt,pressurewouldbeputonhimtorepayhisdebtinoneformoranother.Hetoldyou
thatitwasashockwhenthethreatwasactuallyandexplicitlymade.Thatwassomethingwhichhehadnot
foreseen.Heagreedthathehadwillinglymadethefrstdelivery.Hedecidedhedidnotwishtomakeany
morebutfelttrappedandunabletogotoauthorityforhelp.
313
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantknewor,evenwithhisintellectualdisadvantages,oughttohaveknown,
whenhestartedsellingdrugsforX,thathemaybeplacedundercompulsiontocommitfurthercriminal
acts,thedefenceofduressisnotavailabletohimandyourverdictwouldbeguilty.
IhavepreparedawrittenRoutetoVerdictwhichwillhelpyoutoanswerthesequestionsintherightorder.If
youdothat,youwillarriveatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
Question 1
WasthedefendantthreatenedbyXwithdeathifhedidnotmakeadeliveryofcrackcocainetoSheffeld?
Ifyouaresurehewasnot,verdictguilty
Ifyouconcludethathemayhavebeen,proceedtoquestion2
Question 2
Did the defendant honestly and reasonably believe that the threat would be carried out immediately or
imminentlyifhedidnotcomply?
Ifyouaresurehedidnot,verdictguilty
Ifyouconcludethathemayhavehonestlyandreasonablybelievedthatthethreatwouldbecarried
outimmediatelyorimminently,proceedtoquestion3
Question 3
WasthethreatthedirectcauseofthedefendantsdecisiontodelivercrackcocainetoSheffeld?
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantwouldhavedeliveredthecrackcocainewhetherornothewas
threatened,verdictguilty
Ifyouconcludethatthethreatmayhavebeentherealcauseofthedefendantsdecision,proceedto
question4
Question 4
Wouldareasonablepersonhavebeendriventoactasthedefendantdid?See Notes 1 and2 below
Ifyouaresurethereasonablepersonwouldnothaveactedasthedefendantdid,verdictguilty
Ifyouconcludethatthereasonablepersonmayhaveactedasthedefendantdid,proceedto
question5
1o: defenCes
314
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 5
DidthedefendantvoluntarilyjoinorcontinuetoassociatewithXandhisassociateswhenhekneworought
tohaveknownthathemaybesubjectedbyXtocompulsiontoactunlawfully?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguilty
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,verdictnotguilty
Note 1:
Theanswertothisquestiondependsuponyourconsiderationoftheopportunities,ifany,presented
tothedefendanttoescapefromthethreatmadebyX.Wouldthereasonablepersonhavetakenthem
oranyofthem?
Note 2:
Thereasonablepersonissoberandofthesameageandgenderasthedefendant.Heisalsoaperson
withthedefendantslearningandintellectualdiffculties.Butheisapersonofordinaryfrmnessfora
personofthatage,genderandhislevelofintellectualfunctioning,andnotunusuallytimid.
Sources
Archbold:17-119/133;Blackstone:A3.20/30
Note: Section 47 Criminal Justice Act 1925 provides that on a charge against a wife for any offence
other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the
presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband. See Shortland [1996] 1 Cr App R 116 and Cairns
[2003] 1 WLR 796, [2003] 1 Cr App R 38, [2002] EWCA Crim 2838
31S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Insane and Non-Insane Automatism
Introduction
Insanity
1. Bysection2(1)oftheTrialofLunaticsAct1883(asamendedbysection1oftheCriminalProcedure
(Insanity)Act1964):
Whereinanyindictmentorinformationanyactoromissionischargedagainstanypersonas
anoffence,anditisgiveninevidenceonthetrialofsuchpersonforthatoffencethathewas
insane,soasnottoberesponsible,accordingtolaw,forhisactionsatthetimewhentheactwas
doneoromissionmade,then,ifitappearstothejurybeforewhomsuchpersonistriedthathe
didtheactormadetheomissioncharged,butwasinsaneasaforesaidatthetimewhenhedid
ormadethesame,thejuryshallreturnaspecialverdictthattheaccusedisnotguiltybyreason
ofinsanity.
2. InsanityisdefnedbytheMNaghtenRulesthematerialpartofwhichprovidesasfollows
583
:
thejurorsoughttobetoldthateverymanispresumedtobesane,andtopossessasuffcientdegree
ofreasontoberesponsibleforhiscrimes,untilthecontrarybeprovedtotheirsatisfaction;andthatto
establishadefenceonthegroundofinsanity,itmustbeclearlyprovedthat,atthetimeofcommittingthe
actthepartyaccusedwaslabouringundersuchadefectofreason,fromdiseaseofthemind,asnottoknowthe
natureandqualityoftheacthewasdoing,or,asnottoknowthatwhathewasdoingwaswrong.
584
3. Insanitymustbeprovedbythedefendantonabalanceofprobabilities.
585
Automatism
4. FormerJSBSpecimenDirection47AutomatismcontainsahelpfuldistillationoftheprinciplesasatApril
2003andisextractedatAppendix3.
5. Automatismistheperformanceofaninvoluntaryactnotcausedbyadiseaseofthemindwithin
themeaningoftheMNaghtenRules.Tobeaninvoluntaryactthelossofvoluntarycontrolmustbe
complete.
586
Deliberateandpurposefuldrivingisinconsistentwithinvoluntarinessasisamentalcondition
whichmerelyremovesinhibition.
587
6. Theonusisonthedefendanttoraiseintheevidenceasuffcientcaseofautomatismfttoleavetheissue
tothejury.Oncetheissueofautomatismislefttothejurytheburdenisontheprosecutiontodisproveit
tothecriminalstandard.
588
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
583
10Cl.&Fin.200
584
Wrongmeansillegalor(probably)morallywrongbythestandardsofordinarypeopleseefordiscussionArchbold18-83b;
BlackstoneA3.19;SmithandHogan12thedpage285
585
BrattyvAttorneyGeneralforNorthernIreland[1963]1AC386,[1961]UKHL3
586
AttorneyGeneralsReferenceNo2of1992[1994]QB91
587
Isitt[1978]67CrAppR44
588
Hillv.Baxter[1958]1QB277
31o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
The trial judges task
7. Inmostcasesofallegedautomatismitwillbenecessaryforthetrialjudgetorulewhetherthecondition
onwhichthedefendantreliesiscapableofamountingtonon-insaneautomatismand,ifnot,whether
thedefenceofinsanityshouldbelefttothejury.InBurgess
589
LordLaneCJdescribedthejudgestaskas
follows:
Where the defence of automatism is raised by a defendant, two questions fall to be decided by the
judgebeforethedefencecanbelefttothejury.Thefrstiswhetheraproperevidentialfoundationfor
thedefenceofautomatismhasbeenlaid.Thesecondiswhethertheevidenceshowsthecasetobeone
ofinsaneautomatism,thatistosay,acasewhichfallswithintheMNaghtenRules,oroneofnon-insane
automatism.
8. InHennessy
590
,LordLaneadoptedtheanalysisofProfessorSirJohnSmithQcinSmithandHogan:
If one wants any confrmation, it is to be found, if we may respectfully say so, in Smith and Hogan,
CriminalLaw(6thed.)1988,atpage186,wherethesemattersareveryhelpfullyandclearlysetout.Ifwe
mayjustcitethepassagefromthatpage,itrunsasfollows:
Whenadefendantputshisstateofmindinissue,thequestionwhetherhehasraisedthedefenceofinsanity
isoneoflawforthejudge.WhetherD,orindeedhismedicalwitnesses,wouldcalltheconditiononwhichhe
reliesinsanity,isimmaterial.Theexpertwitnessesmaytestifyastothefactualnatureoftheconditionbut
itisforthejudgetosaywhetherthatisevidenceofadefectofreason,fromdiseaseofthemind,because,
aswillappear,thesearelegal,notmedical,concepts.
Disease of the mind
9. Themeaningoftheexpressiondiseaseofthemindisnotthesameasthemeaningofdiseaseofthe
brain.TheCourtinBurgessfollowedtheopinionofDevlinJinKemp
591
:
Thelawisnotconcernedwiththebrainbutwiththemind,inthesensethatmindisordinarilyused,
thementalfacultiesofreason,memoryandunderstanding.Ifonereadfordiseaseoftheminddisease
ofthebrain,itwouldfollowthatinmanycasespleasofinsanitywouldnotbeestablishedbecauseit
could not be proved that the brain had been affected in any way, either by degeneration of the cells
or in any other way. In my judgment the condition of the brain is irrelevant and so is the question of
whethertheconditionofthemindiscurableorincurable,transitoryorpermanent.Thereisnowarranty
forintroducingthoseconsiderationsintothedefnitionintheMNaghtenRules.Temporaryinsanityis
suffcienttosatisfythem.Itdoesnotmatterwhetheritisincurableandpermanentornot.
Asthefollowingnotesdemonstratediseaseofthemindencompassesanydiseaseormalfunctionofthe
bodyinconsequenceofwhichthedefendantsufferedtheMNaghtendefectofreason.
Footnotes
589
[1991]2QB92atpage4
590
591
[1957]1Q.B.399,407,approvedinSullivan[1984]AC156(HL)atpage172
317
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Origins of the disease internal cause
10. InBurgessthedefendantcommittedadmittedactsofviolencewhilesleepwalking.Themedicalevidence
wasthatatthetimetheactswerecommittedthedefendantsmindwasfunctioningabnormally;itwas
amalfunctionwhichcamefromwithinthedefendantsownmindandtherewasnorelevantexternal
factortoaccountforit;theconditionmanifesteditselfinviolence;therewasariskofrecurrence(which
theCourtheldwasnotessentialtoafndingofdiseaseofthemind).Whilesufferingfromthis(transient)
conditionthedefendantwassufferingfromadiseaseofthemindwhich,asthejuryfound,causedhim
toactwithoutrealisingwhathewasdoing.Thejudgesdecisionthattherewasnoevidencetoleavethe
issueofnon-insaneautomatismtobeconsideredbythejurywasupheld.
11. Epilepsy
592
,andnaturallyoccurringhyperglycaemiaarisingfromdiabetes
593
,havealsobeenheldtobe
conditionsamountingtoadiseaseofthemind.TheCourtinBurgessnoted
594
theacceptancebythe
HouseofLords
595
thatwhilemajormentalillness,suchasschizophrenia,wouldconstituteadiseaseofthe
mind,somightconditionshavingaphysicalorigin,suchasabraintumourorarteriosclerosis.
External cause, medication and recklessness
12. Theavailabilityofthedefenceofautomatismtoadefendantsufferingahypoglycaemicor
hyperglycaemicepisodecausedbyafailuretostabilisehisbloodsugarbymedicationorfoodhasbeen
consideredbytheCourtofAppealinQuick
596
,Bailey
597
,andHennessy
598
.InQuickthedefendants
evidencewasthathehadtakenhisinsulin,buthadthenconsumedalcoholandnofood.LawtonLJ
explainedtheCourtsdecisionthattheissueofautomatismshouldhavebeenlefttothejuryasfollows
599
:
In our judgment the fundamental concept [in the MNaghten Rules] is of a malfunctioning of the
mind caused by disease. A malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect caused by the application
to the body of some external factor such as violence, drugs, including anesthetics, alcohol and
hypnotic infuences cannot fairly be said to be due to disease. Such malfunctioning, unlike that
causedbyadefectofreasonfromdiseaseofthemind,willnotalwaysrelieveanaccusedfromcriminal
responsibility. A self-induced incapacity will not excuse (see Reg. v. Lipman [1970] 1 Q.B. 152 ), nor
will one which could have been reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing, or omitting
to do something, as, for example, taking alcohol against medical advice after using certain
prescribed drugs, or failing to have regular meals while taking insulin. From time to time diffcult
border line cases are likely to arise. When they do, the test suggested by the New Zealand Court of
AppealinReg.v.Cottle[1958]N.Z.L.R.999,1011islikelytogivethecorrectresult,viz.,canthismental
conditionbefairlyregardedasamountingtoorproducingadefectofreasonfromdiseaseofthemind?
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
592
Kemp(supra);Sullivan(supra)
593
Hennessy[1989]1WLR287,[1989]89CrAppR10
594
Atpage99
595
InSullivanandBratty
596
[1973]QB910
597
[1983]1WLR760,[1983]77CrAppR76
598
(Supra)
599
Atpages922-923
318
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
In this case Quicks alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not caused by his diabetes but
by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. Such malfunctioning of his mind as there was, was
caused by an external factor and not by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed
the working of his mind. It follows in our judgment that Quick was entitled to have his defence of
automatism left to the juryandthatBridgeJ.srulingastotheeffectofthemedicalevidencecalled
byhimwaswrong.Hadthedefenceofautomatismbeenlefttothejury,anumberofquestionsoffact
wouldhavehadtobeanswered.Ifhewasinaconfusedmentalcondition,wasitduetoahypoglycaemic
episodeortotoomuchalcohol?Iftheformer,towhatextenthadhebroughtabouthisconditionbynot
followinghisdoctorsinstructionsabouttakingregularmeals?Didheknowthathewasgettingintoa
hypoglycaemicepisode?Ifyes,whydidhenotusetheantidoteofeatingalumpofsugarashehadbeen
advisedtodo?OntheevidencewhichwasbeforethejuryQuickmighthavehaddiffcultyinanswering
thesequestionsinamannerwhichwouldhaverelievedhimofresponsibilityforhisacts.Wecannotsay,
however,withtherequisitedegreeofconfdence,thatthejurywouldhaveconvictedhim.Itfollowsthat
hisconvictionmustbequashedonthegroundthattheverdictwasunsatisfactory.[bracketeditalicsand
boldemphasisadded]
13. InBaileytheCourtdoubtedtheaccuracyoftheobservationmadeobiterthatthefailuretotake
medicationorfoodwouldnotexcusethedefendantifitwasreasonablyforeseeablethatthefailurewould
causetheinvoluntaryact.GriffthsLJsaid
600
:
Itiscommonknowledgethatthosewhotakealcoholtoexcessorcertainsortsofdrugsmaybecome
aggressiveordodangerousorunpredictablethings;theymaybeabletoforeseetherisksofcausingharm
toothers,butneverthelesspersistintheirconduct.Butthesamecannotbesaidwithoutmoreofaman
whofailstotakefoodafteraninsulininjection.Ifhedoesappreciatetheriskthatsuchafailuremaylead
toaggressive,unpredictableanduncontrollableconductandheneverthelessdeliberatelyrunstheriskor
otherwisedisregardsit,thiswillamounttorecklessness.Butwecertainlydonotthinkthatitiscommon
knowledge,evenamongdiabetics,thatsuchisaconsequenceofafailuretotakefood;andthereisno
evidencethatitwasknowntothisappellant.Doubtlessheknewthatifhefailedtotakehisinsulinor
properfoodafterit,hemightloseconsciousness,butassuchhewouldonlybeadangertohimselfunless
heputhimselfinchargeofsomemachinesuchasamotorcar,whichrequiredhiscontinuedconscious
control.
In our judgment, self-induced automatism, other than that due to intoxication from alcohol
or [proscribed]drugs, may provide a defence to crimes of basic intent. The question in each case
will be whether the prosecution have proved the necessary element of recklessness.
601
Incasesof
assault,iftheaccusedknowsthathisactionsorinactionarelikelytomakehimaggressive,unpredictable
oruncontrolled with the result that he may cause some injury to others and he persists in the action
ortakesnoremedialactionwhenheknowsitisrequired,itwillbeopentothejurytofndthathewas
reckless.[boldemphasisadded]
Footnotes
600
601
AsinHardie[1985]1WLR64,[1985]80CrAppR157inwhichtheCAheldthetrialjudgeshouldhavelefttheissuewhetherit
wasrecklessofthedefendanttoconsumevalium(whoseeffectsweregenerallysoporifcandnot,generally,torendertheuser
aggressive,unpredictableoruncontrolled)whenassessingwhetherhehadthemensreaforarsonbeingrecklessastowhether
lifewouldtherebybeendangered,contrarytosection1(2)and(3)CriminalDamageAct1971.
31
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
14. Finally,inHennessy,thedefendant,chargedwiththeftofamotorvehicleanddangerousdriving,claimed
tobesufferingfromahyperglycaemicepisodecausedbyhisfailuretotakehisprescribedinsulinwhich,
inturn,wasduetohisdepressedandanxiousstateofmind.Thejudgefoundthatthedefendants
condition,ifproved,arosefromadiseaseofthemindcausedbynaturallyoccurringdiabetesandnotfrom
anyexternalfactorsuchasthatcontemplatedbyLawtonLJinQuick;accordingly,theverdictsavailableto
thejurywereguilty,ornotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.Thedefendantchangedhispleastoguilty.Itwas
arguedonappealthatthedefendantsfailuretotakeinsulinwasduetoanexternalfactor(depressionand
anxietycausedbymaritalproblems)whicharguablycausednon-insaneautomatism;thus,thedefence
shouldhavebeenlefttothejury.LordLaneCJ,explainingthecourtsdismissaloftheappeal,said
602
:
Inourjudgment,stress,anxietyanddepressioncannodoubtbetheresultoftheoperationofexternal
factors,buttheyarenot,itseemstous,inthemselvesseparatelyortogetherexternalfactorsofthekind
capableinlawofcausingorcontributingtoastateofautomatism.Theyconstituteastateofmindwhich
ispronetorecur.Theylackthefeatureofnoveltyoraccident,whichisthebasisofthedistinctiondrawn
byLordDiplockinR.v.Sullivan(supra).ItiscontrarytotheobservationsofDevlinJ.,towhichwehave
justreferredinthecaseofHillv.Baxter(supra).Itdoesnot,inourjudgment,comewithinthescopeof
the exception some external physical factor such as a blow on the head or the administration of an
anaesthetic.
TheappellantwaspreparedtoaddressargumentstotheCourtbaseduponBailey.TheCourtheldit
wasunnecessarytoconsiderthoseargumentsinviewofitsdecisiontoupholdthereasoningofthetrial
judge,
603
whichcanonlymeanthattheCourtconsidereditunnecessarytoembarkuponajudgment
whetherthejudgeshouldhavelefttheissueofrecklessnesstothejurybecausetheunderlyingcauseof
thedefendantsfailuretotakeinsulinwasincapableofamountingtoanexternalfactorinanyevent.It
wouldseemtofollowthatthestateofthelawisthatifMrHennessyhadfailedtotakehisinsulinbecause
hewasangryandforgot,butdidnotappreciatetheriskthathemightactunconsciously,hewouldbe
entitledtoaverdictofnotguilty(unlessanger
604
andforgetfulness
605
arethemselvesreckless),butifhe
failedtotakehisinsulinbecausehewasdepressed,hewouldbenotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.
Summary
15. Itissuggestedthattheeffectofthecurrentstateofauthorityisasfollows:
A. Ifthedefendantsunconsciousactwascausedbyaninternalfactorthenhecannotrelyon
automatismbutmaypleadinsanity;
B. Ifthedefendantscompletelossofcontroloverhisacts,duringwhichhecommittedtherelevant
unconsciousact,wasdueto:
(i)consumptionofmedicineasprescribed,thedefendantisnotguiltyofacrimeofbasicor
specifcintent,onthegroundofautomatism;
(ii)voluntaryconsumptionofadrugoralcoholotherwisethanasprescribed,thedefendantmay
beguiltyofacrimeofbasicintentonthegroundthathewasrecklessastotheconsequencesof
consumingthesubstance;
1o: defenCes
Footnotes
602
603
See[1989]89CrAppRatpage16
604
Seee.g.Parker[1977]1WLR600perLaneLJatpage604
605
Mereforgetfulnessorafailuretoconcentratearenotthesamethingastheunconsciousnessgivingrisetoautomatismor
insanity:Clarke[1972]56CrAppR225
320
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(iii)voluntaryconsumptionofadrugoralcoholotherwisethanasprescribed,thedefendantwill
benotguiltyofacrimeofspecifcintent;
(iv)failuretotakepalliativemeasurestocorrecttheeffectofaprescribeddrug,thedefendantmay
beguiltyofacrimeofbasicintentonthegroundthathewasrecklessastotheconsequencesof
hisfailure.
Insanity and Automatism
16. Itmayhappenthatthetrialjudgeisfacedwithmedicalevidencewhichrequireshimtoleavethe
questionofautomatismtothejurybutalsotoleavetothejury,intheeventtheyrejectautomatism,theissue
ofinsanity.InRoach
606
thedefendantstabbedV.Therewaspsychiatricevidencethatthedefendantwas
sufferingfromananti-socialpersonalitydisorder.Oneofthedefencepsychiatristsexpressedtheopinionthat
thedefendantwassufferingfromastateofautomatismcausedbythecombinedeffectoffatigue,alcoholand
prescribedmedicationuponadisorderedpersonality.Althoughthepsychiatristcalledtheconditioninsane
automatismofthepsychogenictype,thedefencearguedthatitwastheexternalfactorswhichrendered
thedefendantapureautomaton;accordinglythatthedefenceofautomatismshouldbelefttothejury.The
judgedeclined,anddirectedthejurythattheyshouldconsiderthedefenceofinsaneautomatismtheburden
ofproofofwhichresteduponthedefendant.TheCourtofAppeal,relyingonQuick
607
,heldthatthejudge
shouldhavelefttheissueofautomatismtothejury.PotterLJ,explainingthedecision,said:
28.Asalreadyindicated,theprosecutionurgeduponthejudgethatwhatthedoctorsforthedefendant
placedbeforethejuryamountedtoInsaneAutomatism;indeeditwassodescribedbytheminthe
phraseinsaneautomatismofpsychogenictype,thediseaseofthemindwhichtheyidentifedbeing
describedasmixedpersonalitydisorder.Ontheotherhand,asthedefenceurgeduponthejudge,
theopinionofthedoctorsplainlyaccordedacausativeroletothecontributoryfactorsofalcoholand
prescribed medication in combination with the personality disorder and fatigue. As counsel rightly
submitted to the judge and, indeed, Mr Zeitlin for the Crown conceded before him, whatever the
psychiatricdefnitionadoptedbythedoctorsintheirreportsandevidenceandtheirreferencetoinsane
automatism,thelegaldefnitionofautomatismallowsforthefactthat,ifexternalfactorsareoperative
uponanunderlyingconditionwhichwouldnototherwiseproduceastateofautomatism,thenadefence
of(non-insane)automatismshouldbelefttothejury.
29.Uponcarefulconsideration,itseemstousthatsuchwasthepositionhere....
608
Theavailabilityofthedefenceofnon-insaneautomatismhas,however,beenseverelycurtailedbysuccessive
decisionsoftheCourtofAppealandHouseofLords.Itislikelytobelimitedtotrulyexceptionalmedical
eventsandthoseunforeseeableoccasionswhenthedefendantisconcussedbyabloworhisconductisan
involuntaryresponsetoanemergencyoverwhichhehasnocontrol(e.g.aswarmofbeeswhiledrivingacar).
Footnotes
606
[2001]EWCACrim2698
607
Seethepassagecitedabove
608
SeetheanalysisandcriticismofthisreasoninginSmith&Hogan12thed.atpage313
321
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Directionstothejurywillinevitablyfollowdiscussionwiththeadvocates.Theirpurposewillbetoexplainto
thejuryinthecontextofthefactsofthecasewhatfndingsarerequired,whatverdictsfollowthosefndings,
andtheburdenandstandardofproof.
Illustration epilepsy whether disease of the mind expert evidence uncontested jurys approach
ThedefendantacceptsthatheattackedV.TheevidenceofVisnotindispute.Thedefencecaseisthatatthe
timeoftheassaultthedefendantwaslabouringundertheeffectsofanepilepticft.Hehascalledevidence
fromamedicalexpert,DrA,whichconfrmsthatthedefendanthassufferedepilepsysincehewasachild.
Itislargelycontrolledbymedicationbutoccasionally,despitemedication,thedefendantisliabletoft.Dr
Aexplainedthattherearethreestages.Inthefrststagehewouldbeperceivedasnormal.Inthesecond,
whenelectricaldischargesintothetemporallobesofthebraintakeplace,hewouldbeobservedbyothersto
beftting.Whenhewasinthatstate,itseems,Vwenttoofferhelp.Whileinthethird,post-ictalstage,the
defendantsmindwasreactingtoaperceivedthreat,butthedefendanthadnoconsciousawarenesseither
ofthereactionorofhismovements.
Whentheprosecutionopenedthecaseyouwereinformedthattherewasanissuewhetherthedefendant
was or was not labouring under the effects of a ft. Having considered the expert medical evidence the
prosecutionnolongertakesissuewiththedefence.Letmeexplainthesignifcanceofthisevidence.
Itisadefencetoachargeofassaultthatatthetimeofhisactsthedefendant,wassufferingadefectof
reason,fromadiseaseofthemind,whichcausedhimeithernottoknowwhathewasdoingornottoknow
thatwhathewasdoingwaslegallywrong.Thisissomewhatarcanelanguagefromthe19thcenturybutin
essenceitisstraightforward.Therearetwoquestionsforyoutoconsider:
1. Was the defendant suffering from a medical condition which at the time of the assault impaired the
functioningofhismentalfaculties?Forthispurposeitdoesnotmatterwhetherthemedicalconditionwasa
mentalillnessasyouwouldordinarilyunderstandthatterm,orwasaphysicalillnesswhichhadtheeffectof
impairingtheworkingofthemind;itcanbeeither.Neitherdoesitmatterthattheepisodeofmalfunctioning
wasshort-lived,providedithadtheeffectofimpairingthedefendantsmentalfaculties,suchashisabilityto
understandandcontrolhisactions.
2. Ifso,wastheeffectoftheimpairmentsoseverethatitcausedhimduringthecriticalmomentsnotto
knowwhathewasdoingorthatwhathewasdoingwaslegallywrong?
Letusconsidereachofthesequestionsinturn.
1o: defenCes
322
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Epilepsy is, as we have heard, a disorder of the central nervous system which can result in electrical
disturbances in the brain. When they cause a ft the persons body appears to be and is convulsed. The
patient is unable to resist the attack, is unconscious of his bodys movements, and afterwards is often
unawarethatitoccurred.DrA,havinglistenedtotheevidenceofVandthedefendant,toldyouthatwhile
violenceofthiskindisaninfrequentincidenceofanepilepticft,hehasnodoubtthatthedefendantwas
sufferingtheeffectsofsuchaftwhenhelashedoutattheunfortunateV.Whenhedidso,hewouldhave
beenunaware,asthedefendanttoldyou,ofwhathewasdoing.
Adefendantispresumedtoberesponsibleforhisactionsunlessthecontraryisproved.Theburdenisupon
thedefencetoestablishthisdefence.Thestandardtowhichitmustbeprovedisthebalanceofprobabilities.
Inotherwords,isitmorelikelythannotthatthedefendantwassufferingfromimpairedmentalfacultiesof
suchadegreethathedidnotknowwhathewasdoing?Theevidencewouldappeartobealloneway.Dr
Asevidenceisunchallenged.Thedecision,however,isforyoutomake.Ifyouacceptthisevidence,thenthe
verdictyoushouldreturnisnotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.Youmaybesurprisedthatadisorderofthe
centralnervoussystemshouldbedescribedasinsanity.However,insanity,asIhavedefneditforyou,isa
legalandnotamedicalterm.Itissimplyaconvenientwordtodescribetheeffectofthemedicalcondition
onthefunctioningofthemind.IthasnoneoftheconnotationswhichyouwouldassociatewithDickensian
England.
Illustration charges of grievous bodily harm and grievous bodily harm with intent defence of
automatism arising from earlier blow to the head on sports feld whether complete loss of control
contested expert evidence - signifcance of alternative offences
Thedefendantisarugbyplayer.Hewassentoffbythereferee,V,forstampingonthelegofanopponent
ataruck.ThedefendantacceptsthatheimmediatelyreactedbypunchingVintheface.Theresultwasa
depressedfractureofVscheekbonefromwhichhehasmadeapainfulbutfullrecovery.Itisacceptedbythe
defencethattheinjuryinfictedconstitutedgrievousbodilyharm.Thedefendantisnowchargedwithtwo
offencesinthealternative:count1,causinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent,andcount2,infictinggrievous
bodilyharm.Therearetwoissuesraisedforyourconsideration.Thefrstiswhethertheblowwasinficted
unlawfullyandthesecond,whicharisesonlyifyoufndtheblowwasunlawfullyinficted,iswhetherthe
defendantintendedtocausereallyseriousinjury.
Letmeexplainhowthequestionofunlawfulnessarises.Ordinarily,apersonisassumedtobeincontrolof
hisownactions.Soifamanpunchesanotherinangerhisactionisunlawful.Here,however,thedefendants
caseisthathehasalawfulexcuseforwhathedid.Hesayshehadnoconsciousintentionofpunchingthe
refereeandhisactionindoingsowascompletelyinvoluntary.
Hesaysthatearlieringameheandamemberoftheopposingteamjumpedfortheballatthesametimeat
akick-off.Therewasacollisionofheadswhichcausedhimtobedazed.Helaystillforaminuteorso,and
slowlycameround.Heplayedonforafurther20minutesbeforehewassentoff.Thedefendantscaseis
thathemusthavebeeninastateofconcussionwhenhelashedoutatthereferee.Thatstateofconcussion
deprivedhimoftheconsciousabilitytocontrolhisactions.Whileheregretswhathedid,hisactionwasnot,
inthesecircumstances,unlawful.
Thelawisthatif,whenhethrewthepunch,thedefendantwas,becauseofsometemporaryconditionof
themind,incapableofexercisingcontroloverhisactions,sothathisactionswereinvoluntary,heisnot
323
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
responsibleforthemand,forthatreason,hedidnotactunlawfully.However,thereisadifferencebetween
complete and partial loss of control. Only if the loss of voluntary control was complete is the defendant
excusedresponsibilityunderthecriminallaw.Furthermore,adistinctionneedstobemadebetweenlossof
voluntarycontrolandlossofinhibition.Inhibitionisthequalityofmindwhichpreventsusfrombehaving
badly.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsimplylosthistemperthatisnotthesameaslossoftheabilityto
controlhismovements.Theconditiononwhichthedefendantreliesiscalledautomatism,butthatword
isnotusedasamedicalbutasalegalterm.IthasthespecialmeaningwhichIhavejustdescribed.The
defendanthasraisedthedefencebygivingevidencehimselfandbycallingamedicalexpertonhisbehalf,
MrA,aconsultingclinicalpsychologist.Theburdenofprovingthatthepunchwasthrownunlawfullyis
upontheprosecution.Thatmeansthattheburdenofproving,sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendantwas
notactinginastateofautomatismrestsontheprosecution.
Mr A gave evidence that concussion is a condition in which the brain is in a state of shock following a
heavyblowtotheheadorwhiplashoftheneckwhichcausesthebraintojarwithinthevaultoftheskull.
Symptomsofconcussionmayincludeheadache,dizziness,confusion,lackoffeelingoremotion,anxiety,
blurredvision,vomiting,andtheinabilitytoremembereventspriortotheinjury.Ontheotherhand,the
bodyisnotdisabled.Concussioncanvaryinintensity.Atitsworstthepatientisunconsciousandunmoving.
But,thepatientmaybeabletocontinuerunningabout,apparentlytakingpartinagameofrugby,although
performanceislikelytobeerraticandtheplayerislikelytobespatiallyconfused.Thedefendantsdescription
ofhisstateofmindis,inMrAsopinion,consistentwiththeeffectsofconcussion.Askedbycounselforthe
prosecutionwhetherhewassayingthedefendanthadcompletelylostcontrolofhisabilitytocontrolhis
actions,MrAsaiditwasunlikelybuthecouldnotexcludethepossibility.
DrB,aconsultantneurologistspecialisinginbraininjury,gaveevidenceonbehalfoftheprosecutionafter
MrA.Hetoldyouthatinhisopinionthiswasnotacaseofconcussionatallor,ifitwas,itwasanextremely
mildversionofit.Askedwhythatwasso,herepliedthatthedefendanthadacceptedasignifcantdegree
ofrecollectionofeventsbetweenhisinitialrecoveryfromtheclashofheadsandthesendingoff.Herecalls,
forexample,thescoringofatrybytheoppositionwing.Hedescribedmakinganattempttotacklehim
beforehewentoverthetryline.Hetoldyouthatherecallsbeingattheruckandattemptingtodriveover
theball.Hedoesnotclaimtohavenorecollection;hespecifcallydeniesthathewasstampingonthelegs
oftheoppositionNo.8.Hewasruckingtheball.Theseare,DrBtoldyou,episodesofspecifcawareness
whichdemonstratethedefendantsmindwasfunctioningasitshould.Followinghissendingoffthepolice
werecalledbytheoppositionlinesman.Bythetimeoftheirarrivalhalfanhourlater,thedefendanthad
showered, dressed and left in his car. He drove home, 40 miles away without mishap, and received no
medicaladvicebeforehewascharged.Askedbycounselforthedefendantwhetherhecouldexcludethe
possibilityofconcussion,DrBsaidthatnothinginmedicinewascertain,butinhisopinionthedefendant
wasdazedandprobablysufferedheadacheandperiodofdizziness.Hethoughtithighlyunlikelythathis
capacitytoexercisecontroloverhismovementswasimpaired,letalonecompletelyremoved.Theveryfact
thatherespondedviolentlytohissendingoffsuggeststhathisbrainwasmakinganormalresponsetoa
provocativestimulus.
1o: defenCes
324
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Theevidenceofexpertshasbeenreceivedtoassistustounderstandmedicalsciencewhichisnotfamiliarto
us.NeitherMrA,norDrB,examinedthedefendantatthetimeandtheywerebeingaskedtoexpresstheir
medicalopinionbasedupontheobservationsofothersandthedescriptionofsymptomsbythedefendant
himself.Ontheissuewhetherthedefendantwassufferingfromconcussionand,ifso,whateffectthatmay
havehaduponthefunctioningofhismind,theirevidenceis,youmaythink,ofcriticalimportance.Itisnot,
however,theonlyevidenceinthecase.Thejudgementwhetherthedefendantsabilitytocontrolhisactions
was completely removed is yours alone. You should judge the evidence of these expert witnesses as you
wouldanyother.Youwillneedtoconsidertheirrespectiveexperienceandexpertiseinthefeldofheadinjury
and,perhapsmostimportant,thequalityoftheanalysiswhichleadsthemtoexpresstheopinionstheydid.
Itisforyoutodecidewhethertoacceptanexpertopinionornot.
IfyouconcludethatwhenhepunchedVthedefendantmayhavebeenconcussedand,inconsequenceofhis
concussion,hemayhavecompletelylosthisabilitytocontrolhisactions,hisactionswouldnothavebeen
unlawfulandforthatreasonyoumustfndthedefendantnotguiltyofcount1andcount2.If,however,you
aresure,astheprosecutioncontends,thatthedefendanthadnotcompletelylosthisabilitytocontrolhis
actions,thepunchwasdeliveredunlawfullyandyouwouldfndthedefendantguiltyeitherofcount1orof
count2.
Count1chargesthedefendantwithcausinggrievousbodilyharmwithintent.Grievousbodilyharmmeans
really serious physical harm. You judge whether the defendant intended to cause really serious harm by
considering all the surrounding circumstances, including the nature and force of the blow delivered, the
immediatecauseoftheblow,itsunexpectedness,andtheexposedpositionofVasreferee.However,the
circumstances include the fact that the defendant had undoubtedly received a blow to the head shortly
before.Suchablowwascapableofaffectingthedefendantsabilitytoexercisesensiblejudgmentevenif
itdidnotremovehiscapacitytocontrolhisphysicalmovements.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantmay
havelashedoutinanunthinkingandinstantreactiontohissendingoffyoumayconcludethattheinjuryhe
causedwassignifcantlygreaterthananythingheintended.Thisisajudgementforyoutomake,butifyou
arenotsurethedefendantintendedtocausereallyseriousharmtoVyouwouldfndhimnotguiltyofcount
1butguiltyofcount2.
I have prepared a written note which will guide you to an appropriate verdict depending upon your
assessmentoftheevidence.Letusreadthroughittogether.
Question 1
DidthedefendantpunchVtothefacecausinghimreallyseriousphysicalharm?
Admitted,proceedtoquestion2
32S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 2
WhenthedefendantpunchedV,hadhe,byreasonofconcussion,completelylosthisabilitytocontrolhis
actions?Seenotebelow
Ifyouaresurethedefendanthadnotcompletelylosthisabilitytocontrolhisactions,proceedto
question3
Ifyouconcludethedefendantmayhavecompletelylosthisabilitytocontrolhisactions,verdictnot
guiltycount1andcount2
Question 3
Didthedefendant,whenhepunchedV,intendtocauseVreallyseriousphysicalharm?
IfyouaresurethedefendantintendedtocauseVreallyseriousphysicalharm,verdictguiltycount1
andproceednofurther.
IfyouarenotsurethedefendantintendedtocauseVreallyseriousphysicalharm,verdictnotguilty
count1butguiltycount2.
Note:
The loss of control required is a complete loss of the defendants ability to control his actions,
not, for example, an inability to restrain his temper.
Illustration attack with a knife alternative charges of wounding with intent and wounding issue
for the jury insane automatism or non-insane automatism
ThedefendantacceptsthatheattackedVwithaknife.Hisdefenceisthathisminddidnotgowithhisact;
thatintheunusualcircumstanceshere,hisactwasnotunlawful,andheisentitledtobeexcused.That
defencehasraisedtwoissuesaboutwhichyouhaveheardmuchintheevidence,automatismandinsanity.
AsItoldyouatthetimethesemayseemlikeratherforbiddingwordsbutyoudonotneedtobeconcerned
becausetheyareusedaslegalratherthanmedicaltermswhichIcanexplaintoyou.
Non-insane automatism
Apersonisgenerallytakentoberesponsibleforhisactionsunlesstheyareaccidental.Thatisbecausea
personisnormallyincontrolofhisactions,inthesensethathismindexercisescontroloverhisphysical
movements.Rarely,however,itmaybethatapersonhascompletelylosttheabilitytocontrolhisactions
as a result of some medical or other event for which he is not responsible. In other words, he is acting
as an automaton. Only if the loss of control is complete can the plea of automatism succeed. Now that
thedefendanthasraisedtheissueintheevidence,youmustconsiderit.Theburdenofprovingthatthe
defendantactedunlawfullyrestsontheprosecution.Itisthereforetheprosecutionwhichmustprovetoyou,
sothatyouaresure,thatthedefendanthadnotcompletelylosthisabilitytocontrolhisactions;inother
words,thatthedefendantwasnot,whenhestabbedV,actingasanautomaton.
1o: defenCes
32o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Insane automatism
Letmeturnforthemomenttoinsanity.Apersonisassumedtobesaneandthereforeresponsibleforhis
actionsunlessthecontraryisproved.Butifapersonactedwhilesufferingadefectofreason,fromadisease
ofthemind,whichcausedhimeithernottoknowwhathewasdoingornottoknowthatwhathewas
doingwaslegallywrong,thereisaspecialverdictavailableofnotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.Thesewords
defectofreasonanddiseaseofthemindwerefrstusedinthe19thcenturyandmaysoundodd.Theyare
infactnotcomplicated.Therearetwoquestions:
1. Was the defendant suffering from an impairment of his mental faculties caused by a medical
condition?
2. Ifso,wasitsoseverethathedidnotrealisewhathewasdoingorthatwhathewasdoingwas
wrong?
Theburdenofestablishingthedefenceofinsanityrestsonthedefence.Itmeansthatbeforeyoucouldreturn
thespecialverdictofnotguiltybyreasonofinsanityyouwouldhavetofndthatitwasmorelikelythannot
thedefendantsmentalfacultieswereimpairedinthisway.
Defence expert evidence, personality disorder, alcohol, fatigue, prescribed drugs
Howdotheseissuesarise?Youhaveheardevidencefrompsychiatricexpertsonbothsides,forthedefence
and for the prosecution. They agree that the defendant suffers from an anti-social personality disorder.
Thereis,however,disagreementbetweenthemastowhetherthisisapsychogenicdisorder,thatistosaya
disorderoriginatinginthemind,ormerelyadisorderedaspectofthedefendantspersonality.Allagreethat
thedefendantspersonalitydisordercouldnotalonecausethedefendanttoactasanautomaton;norisit
aconditionwhichcanalonecauseanimpairmentofthedefendantsmentalfacultiesinsuchawayasto
removehisabilitytorealisewhathewasdoingorknowingrightfromwrong.Thedefenceexpertwitnesses
toldyouitwastheiropinionthatthedefendantmayhavebeensufferingfromautomatisminconsequenceof
theeffect,unknowntothedefendant,ofalcohol,fatigueandprescribeddrugsuponhispersonalitydisorder.
DrAtoldyouthatinhisopinionitwasthecocktailofalcoholanddrugswhichcausedastateinwhichthe
defendantsmindwasnolongerincontrolofhisphysicalactions.DrBtoldyouthatheagreedwithDrA,
savethatinhisopiniontheunderlyingcauseofthelossofcontrolwasthepersonalitydisorderwhichwas,
by reason of the effect upon it of alcohol and drugs, rendered a psychogenic disorder of the mind. The
defendantwas,inhisview,sufferingfromaconditionhecalledinsaneautomatism.
Prosecution expert evidence, neither automaton, nor insane
DrCandDrDgaveevidencefortheprosecution.Theyareagreedintheiropinionthatatnotimewasthe
defendantdeprivedofmentalcontrolofhisphysicalmovements,andatalltimesheknewwhathewas
doingandwasawareofthedifferencebetweenrightandwrong.Furthermore,theysaythatthedefendants
personalitydisorder,withorwithoutthedrinkanddrugsconsumed,couldnotconstituteadiseaseofthe
mindormedicalcondition.Itismerelyafeatureofthedefendantspersonalitywhichmakeshimliabletoact
impulsivelyandwithoutinhibition.Thedefendantwasthereforenotactingasanautomatonandwasnot
insane.Heisresponsibleforhisactions.
327
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youwillneedtoresolvethesedifferencesandyourdecisionwilldeterminewhetheryourverdictisguilty,not
guilty,ornotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.Iwillinafewminutesprovideyouwithanotewhichexplainshow
andinwhatorderyoushouldconsidertheseissuessoastoarriveatyourverdict.Youarenotexpectedto
rememberwhatIamsayingwithoutanotetojogyourmemory.
Jurys approach to automatism
Youshouldfrstconsidertheissueofautomatism.Automatismdoesnotapplyifthedefendantscondition
arosefromadiseaseofthemind,inotherwordsamedicalconditionarisingnaturallyfromwithin.Itonly
appliesifyouconsiderthatthedefendantlostormaycompletelyhavelostvoluntarycontrolofhisactions
becauseoftheunknowneffectuponhimofprescribeddrugsandalcohol.OnlyDrAadvancesthisopinion.
Youmustdecidewhetheryouacceptthathisopinionisrightormayberight.Ifhisopinionmayberight,
yournextdecisioniswhethertheeffectofdrugsandalcoholwassuchascompletelytodeprivethedefendant
ofhisabilitytocontrolhisactions.DrAandDrBagreethatthedefendantwassodeprived.DrCandDr
Dagreethathewasnot.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsabilitytocontrolhisactionsmayhavebeen
completelyremovedyoushouldfndthedefendantnotguiltyofbothcount1andcount2.
If, however, you are sure either (1) that the cause of the defendants loss of control was his personality
disorderandnotthealcoholandprescribeddrugs,or(2)thathedidnotsufferacompletelossofcontrol,
youwillhaverejectedthedefenceofautomatismandyoushouldturnnexttothedefenceofinsanity.
Jurys approach to insanity
First,youneedtoconsiderwhetherthedefendantwassufferingadiseaseofthemind,inotherwordsan
impairmentofmentalfunctioningcausedbyamedicalcondition.ItwasDrBwhoexpressedthisopinion.Dr
A,DrCandDrDallsaidthatthepersonalitydisordercouldnotberegardedasadiseaseofthemind.Ifyou
considerthatitismorelikelythannotthatthedefendantwassufferingfromadiseaseofthemindthenyou
needtoconsiderthesecondquestionwhichiswhetherthedegreeofimpairmentofthedefendantsmental
facultieswassuchthatwhenhestabbedVhedidnotknowwhathewasdoingordidnotknowthatitwas
legallywrong.Ifyouconcludeitismorelikelythannotthathedidnotknowwhathewasdoingordidnot
knowitwaslegallywrong,yourverdictsonbothcountswouldbenotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.
If,ontheotherhand,youdecidethatitismorelikelythannoteither (1) thatthedefendantwasnotsuffering
adiseaseofthemindor(2) thatheknewwhathewasdoingandknewthatitwaslegallywrong,thenyou
willhaverejectedthedefenceofinsanity.
Specifc intent and the alternative
Ifyourejectbothautomatismandinsanity,thatwouldleavethefnalquestionwhichistheintentionwith
whichthedefendantstabbedV.IfheintendedtocauseVreallyseriousinjuryheisguiltyofcount1.Ifyouare
notsurehehadthatintentionyourverdictoncount1wouldbenotguilty.Toprovecount2theprosecution
mustmakeyousurethatthedefendantdeliberatelystabbedVandthathemusthaverealisedtherewasa
riskthatVwouldbeinjured.Ifyouaresureofthatyourverdictwouldbeguiltyofcount2.Ifyouarenotsure,
itwouldbenotguilty.
1o: defenCes
328
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
IhavepreparedawrittenRoutetoVerdictwhichwillhelpyoutoanswerthesequestionsintheright
order.Ifyoudothat,youwillarriveatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.WhenwehavedonethatI
willremindyouoftheevidencerelevanttoeachquestion.
Pleaseconsiderquestion1andproceedasdirected
Question 1
DidthedefendantstabVwithaknifecausingawound?
Automatism
Question 2
WhenthedefendantstabbedV,washismentalabilitytocontrolhisphysicalactionsaffectedbyalcoholand
prescribeddrugsconsumedbyhim,orwasthesubstantialcauseofhisactionshisunderlyingpersonality
disorder,orwashisabilitytocontrolhisphysicalactsunaffectedbyeither?
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantsmentalabilitytocontrolhisphysicalactionswasunaffectedby
hisconsumptionofalcoholanddrugsoryouaresurethathismentalabilitytocontrolhisactionswas
removedbyhispersonalitydisorder,proceedtoquestion4
If you conclude that the defendants mental ability to control his actions was or may have been
affectedbytheconsumptionofalcoholandprescribeddrugs,proceedtoquestion3
Question 3
When the defendant stabbed V, had his mental ability to control his physical actions been completely
removed?SeeNote 1below
Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsmentalabilitytocontrolhisphysicalactionshadbeencompletely
removed,verdictsnotguiltycount1andcount2
If you are sure that the defendants mental ability to control his physical actions had not been
completelyremoved,proceedtoquestion4
Insanity
Question 4
When the defendant stabbed V was he suffering from a disease of the mind, in other words a medical
conditionwhichimpairedhismentalfunctioning?SeeNote 2below
Ifyouconsiderthatitismorelikelythannotthatthedefendantwassufferingfromadiseaseofthe
mindwhichimpairedhismentalfunctioning,proceedtoquestion5
Ifyouconsiderthatitismorelikelythannotthatthedefendantwasnotsufferingfromadiseaseofthe
mindwhichimpairedhismentalfunctioning,proceedtoquestion6
32
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 5
Wasthedefendantsmentalfunctioningsoimpairedthathedidnotknowwhathewasdoingor,ifhedid,
hedidnotrealisethatwhathewasdoingwaslegallywrong?
Ifyouconsideritismorelikelythannotthatthedefendantsmentalfunctioningwasimpairedtothis
degree,verdictscounts1and2,notguiltybyreasonofinsanity
Ifyouconsideritmorelikelythannotthatthedefendantsmentalfunctioningwasnotimpairedto
thisdegree,proceedtoquestion6
Note: if you reach question 6 you will have rejected both automatism and insanity
Intent
Question 6
WhenthedefendantstabbedV,didheintendtocauseVreallyseriousinjury?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount1andproceednofurther
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,verdictnotguiltycount1andproceedtoquestion7
Deliberate or reckless act
Question 7
WhenthedefendantstabbedVdidhedosodeliberately?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount2
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,proceedtoquestion8
Question 8
WhenthedefendantstabbedVdidhedosorecklessly,thatis,realisingthattherewasariskofharmtoV
fromthewayhewasusingtheknife,didthedefendantneverthelessproceedtotakethatrisk?
Ifyouaresurehedid,verdictguiltycount2
Ifyouarenotsurehedid,verdictnotguiltycount2
Note 1:
An inability to control emotions such as temper is not an inability to control physical actions
Note 2:
You need to resolve the issue whether the defendants anti-social personality disorder is a
disease of the mind arising from a medical condition or merely an extreme and abnormal form
of personality trait capable of being exacerbated by alcohol and prescribed drugs
Sources
Archbold17-78/101;BlackstoneA1.6/7,A3.7,A3.13/19
1o: defenCes
330
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(5) Provocation

609

Introduction
1. Provocationisapartialdefencetomurder,buttonootheroffence,atcommonlaw.Unlikethedefenceof
diminishedresponsibility,oncethereisevidenceofprovocationtobelefttothejury,theburdenisonthe
prosecutiontodisproveprovocationtothecriminalstandard.Iftheelementsofmurderareprovedand
provocationisnotdisprovedthedefendantisentitledtoaverdictofmanslaughter.
2. ProvocationwasdescribedbyDevlinJinDuffy

610
asfollows:
Provocationissomeact,orseriesofacts,donebythedeadmantotheaccusedwhichwouldcausein
anyreasonableperson,andactuallycausesintheaccused,asuddenandtemporarylossofselfcontrol,
rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his
mind.
Provocation which actually causes in the accused a sudden and temporary loss of self control
3. Whilethetrialjudgeshouldleavetothejuryanalternativeverdictavailableontheevidence,whatever
stancewastakenbythepartiesattrial

611
,thereisnoobligationtoleavetothejurythedefenceof
provocationwheretheevidencedisclosesnoprovocativewordsorconductwhichcouldhavecaused
thedefendanttolosehisselfcontrol,notwithstandingevidencethatthedefendantdidinfactlosehis
selfcontrol.
612
Wherethereisevidenceofprovocativewordsorconductthetrialjudgeshouldleavethe
defencetothejury,includingtheissuewhetherthedefendantlosthisselfcontrol.
4. Section3HomicideAct1957provides:
Whereonachargeofmurderthereisevidenceonwhichajurycanfndthatthepersoncharged
wasprovoked(whetherbythingsdoneorbythingssaidorbybothtogether)tolosehisselfcontrol,
thequestionwhethertheprovocationwasenoughtomakeareasonablemandoashedidshallbe
lefttobedeterminedbythejury;andindeterminingthatquestionthejuryshalltakeintoaccount
everythingbothdoneandsaidaccordingtotheeffectwhich,intheiropinion,itwouldhaveona
reasonableman.
5. ThesectionisdrawninwidertermsthanthedefnitiongivenbyDevlinJinDuffy.Wordsaloneorconduct
aloneorwordsincombinationwithconductmayconstitutetheprovocation.Thereneedbenoquality
ofwrongfulnessaboutthewordsorconductiftheydoinfactcausealossofselfcontrol.
613
Thewords
orconductmayemanatefromathirdperson,atleastwheretheycannotsensiblybeseparatedfrom
thewordsorconductofthevictim.
614
Thewordsorconductmaybeaimedatathirdpersoncausingthe
defendanttolosehisselfcontrol.
615
Footnotes
609
Note:ConsiderablechangestothepartialdefenceofprovocationwilltakeplacewhenacommencementdateissetforChapter
1,Part2CoronersandJusticeAct2009
610
[1949]1AllER932n
611
Coutts[2005]1WLR2154,[2007]1CrAppR60,[2006]UKHL39(HL)
612
Acott[1997]1WLR306,[1997]2CrAppR94
613
Thepersistentcryingofababymaybeenough:Doughty[1986]83CrAppR319
614
Davies[1975]QB691
615
Pearson[1992]CrimLR193
331
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes
Footnotes
616
Ahluwalia[1992]4AllER889,[1993]96CrAppR134
617
618
[2005]2AC580,[2005]UKPC23
619
[1978]AC705
620
[2001]1AC146
6. Thelossofselfcontrolmustbesuddenandtemporarybuttheremaybesomedelaybetweenthe
provocationandlossofcontrol.Revengeafterrefectionisnot,however,killingunderprovocation.
Ontheotherhand,wheretheprovocativeconducttookplaceoveraprolongedperiodoftime,the
cumulativeeffect,culminatinginacomparativelytrivialactofprovocationcausinglossofselfcontrol,
maybesuffcient.
616
The effect upon a reasonable man
7. Section3providesthatthejudgemustleavetothejurythequestionwhethereverythingsaidordone
wasenoughtomakeareasonablemanactasthedefendantdid.
8. InSymmons
617
DysonLJsaid:
Thereisnownodoubtastotheconstituentsofprovocation.Thedefendantmusthavebeenprovoked
bythingssaidordoneorbybothtogethertolosehisself-control(limb1).Thejurymustformaviewas
tothegravityoftheprovocationforthedefendantinallthecircumstances;andthen(limb2)decide
whether,havingregardtotheactualprovocationandtheirviewastoitsgravity,apersonhavingthe
powerofself-controltobeexpectedofapersonofthesexandageofthedefendantwouldhavedone
whatthedefendantdid:seeperLordHobhouseinRvSmith(Morgan)
[2001]1CrAppR31at[224]and
perLordNichollsinAGforJerseyvHolley[2005]2CrAppR588at[10]to[12].
9. ThePrivyCouncilinAttorneyGeneralforJerseyv.Holley
618
consideredthequestionwhetherthereasonable
mantestasexplainedinDPPv.Camplin
619
survivednotwithstandingthedecisionofthemajorityofthe
HouseofLordsinSmith(Morgan)
620
.ThetestremainsasinCamplin.LordNicholls,expressingtheviewof
themajorityinHolleysaid:
10.Before1957lossofself-controlhadtobebroughtaboutbythingsdone.Wordswouldnotsuffceto
constituteprovocation.Section3extendedthescopeofthedefencebyprovidingthatinfuturelossof
self-controlcouldbeprovokedeitherbythingsdoneorbythingssaidorbybothtogether.Thisextension
hadaneffectonwhatevidencewasrelevant,andthereforeadmissible,ontheissueofthegravityofthe
provocation,thatis,thefrstelementintheobjectiveingredient.AsexplainedbyLordDiplockinCamplin
[1978] AC 705 , 717, when words alone could not amount to provocation the gravity of provocation
depended primarily on degrees of violence. Once words could amount to provocation, the gravity of
provocationcoulddependupontheparticularcharacteristicsorcircumstancesofthepersontowhom
atauntorinsultisaddressed.LordDiplockexpressedhisview,atp718,onwhatwouldbeaproper
directiontoajuryonthequestionlefttotheirdeterminationbysection3:
Heshould...explaintothemthatthereasonablemanreferredtointhequestionisapersonhaving
thepowerofself-controltobeexpectedofanordinarypersonofthesexandageoftheaccused,but
inotherrespectssharingsuchoftheaccusedscharacteristicsastheythinkwouldaffectthegravityofthe
provocationtohim;andthatthequestionisnotmerelywhethersuchapersonwouldinlikecircumstances
beprovokedtolosehisself-controlbutalsowhetherhewouldreacttotheprovocationastheaccused
did.(Emphasisadded).
1o: defenCes
332
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
11. Henceifahomosexualmanistauntedforhishomosexualityitisforthejurytoconsiderwhether
a homosexual man having ordinary powers of self-control might, in comparable circumstances, be
provoked to lose his self-control and react to the provocation as the defendant did. Authority for this
proposition,ifneeded,istheglue-sniffercaseofRvMorhall[1996]AC90.Therethedeceasednagged
thedefendantabouthisaddictiontoglue-sniffng.TheproblembeforetheHouseofLordswaswhether
thisaddictionshouldhavebeentakenintoaccountatthedefendantstrialasaffectingthegravityofthe
provocation:seep97d.LordGoffofChieveley,withwhosespeechallmembersoftheHouseagreed,said
itshould.Thethrustofhisreasoningwasthat,forthispurpose,theentirefactualsituationwastobe
takenintoaccount.Thisincludesmattersnotfallingstrictlywithinthedescriptioncharacteristics.Italso
includesmatterswhicharediscreditabletothedefendant.LordGoffsaid,atp99:
supposethatamanwhohasbeeninprisonforasexualoffence,forexamplerape,hasafterhisrelease
been taunted by another man with reference to that offence. It is diffcult to see why, on ordinary
principles,hischaracteristicorhistoryasanoffenderofthatkindshouldnotbetakenintoaccountas
goingtothegravityoftheprovocation.
10. Itwasrecognisedthatdiffcultiescouldarisewherethedefendantscharacteristicswerecapableof
affectingnotonlythegravityoftheprovocationtohimbutalsohiscapacitytoexercisetheselfcontrolof
thereasonableman.LordNichollssaid:
17.......Exceptional excitability or pugnacity is one thing. But what if the defendant is suffering from
seriousmentalabnormality,asintheMorganSmithcasewherethedefendantsufferedfromsevereclinical
depression? Is he, for the purposes of the defence of provocation, to be judged by the standard of a
personhavingordinarypowersofself-control?
18. TheviewoftheminorityinthecaseofMorganSmithisthatheis.Thestandardisaconstant,objective
standardinallcases.Thejuryshouldassessthegravityoftheprovocationtothedefendant.Inthatrespect,
aswhenconsideringthesubjectiveingredientofprovocation(didthedefendantlosehisself-control?),
thejurymusttakethedefendantastheyfndhim,wartsandall,asLordMillettobserved. But having
assessed the gravity of the provocation to the defendant, the standard of self-control by which his
conduct is to be evaluated for the purpose of the defence of provocation is the external standard of
a person having and exercising ordinary powers of self-control. That is the standard the jury should
apply when considering whether or not the provocation should be regarded as suffcient to bring
about the defendants response to it.... [boldemphasisadded]
11. LordNichollsconsideredtheeffectofthisdecisionuponcaseswherethedefendantwassuffering
batteredwomansyndrome
621
:
...Asexplainedabove,theevidenceofthewomansconditionmayberelevantontwoissues:whether
shelostherself-control,andthegravityoftheprovocationforher.Thejurywillthendecidewhetherin
theiropinion,havingregardtotheactualprovocationandtheirviewofitsgravityforthedefendant,a
womanofheragehavingordinarypowerofself-controlmighthavedonewhatthedefendantdid.
Footnotes
621
25
333
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes
Footnotes
622
[1969]2AC130atpages137-138
12. Thus,whilethebatteredwomansyndromesufferedbythedefendantmayhavetheeffectofreducing
hercapacitytomaintainherselfcontrol,thisfeatureofherdisorderisnotbeattributedtothereasonable
womaninhersituation.However,thefactthatthedefendantwasalongtermvictimofabuse,making
eachinsultcumulativelyworseand,thus,increasingthegravityoftheprovocationtoherwouldbea
featureproperlytobeattributedtothereasonablewoman.
13. Thewordsenoughtomakeareasonablemandoashedidenablethejurytoconsidernotjustwhether
areasonablepersonwouldhavelostcontrolbutalsowhetherthereasonableman,outofcontrol,would
haveactedasthedefendantdid.InPhillipsvTheQueenLordDiplock,deliveringtheopinionofthePrivy
Council,explainedthejurystaskasfollows
622
:
IntheirLordshipsview[thestatute]inreferringtothequestiontobelefttobedeterminedbythejuryas
beingwhethertheprovocationwasenoughtomakeareasonablemandoashe[sc.thepersoncharged]
didexplicitlyrecognisesthatwhatthejuryhavetoconsider,oncetheyhavereachedtheconclusionthat
thepersonchargedwasinfactprovokedtolosehisself-controlisnotmerelywhetherintheiropinionthe
provocationwouldhavemadeareasonablemanlosehisself-controlbutalsowhether,havinglosthisself-
control,hewouldhaveretaliatedinthesamewayasthepersonchargedinfactdid.
BeforetheirLordships,counselfortheappellantcontended,notasamatterofconstructionbutasoneof
logic,thatonceareasonablemanhadlosthisself-controlhisactionsceasedtobethoseofareasonable
man and that accordingly he was no longer fully responsible in law for them whatever he did. This
argumentisbasedonthepremisethatlossofself-controlisnotamatterofdegreebutisabsolute;thereis
nointermediatestagebetweenicydetachmentandgoingberserk.Thispremise,unlesstheargumentis
purelysemantic,mustbebaseduponhumanexperienceandis,intheirLordshipsview,false.Theaverage
manreactstoprovocationaccordingtoitsdegreewithangrywords,withablowofthehand,possiblyif
theprovocationisgrossandthereisadangerousweapontohand,withthatweapon.Itisnotinsignifcant
thattheappellanthimselfdescribedhisowninstantaneousreactiontothevictimsprovocationinspitting
onhismotherasIspinaroundquicklywastopunchherwithmyhand.
14. Itisnot,however,appropriatetospeakintermsofproportionalityoftheresponsetotheprovocation
offered,sincetodosomaygivetheimpressionthatthedefendantmustexercisejudgmentwhichisa
conceptinconsistentwithalossofcontrol.
15. Forself-inducedprovocationseeArchbold19-62andBlackstoneB1.30
1o: defenCes
334
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Discussionwiththeadvocatesbeforespeechesisrequired,particularlywherethedefenceofprovocation
isputinthealternativeor,despitesomeevidenceofprovocation,perhapsbecauseitisinconsistentwith
thecasebeingadvanced,isnotbeingputatall.
Thejuryshouldbetoldthattheburdenofdisprovingprovocationliesupontheprosecutiontothe
criminalstandard.
Thedirectionwillrequireanexplanationofthetwo-stagetestusingthewordsofthesectionbut,
essentially,placingitwithinthecontextoftheevidenceinthecase.
Theprovocativewordsorconductshouldbeidentifed,asshouldthedevelopmentofcumulativeor
slow-burnprovocation.
Anyrelevantcharacteristicsofthedefendantshouldbeidentifedandtheirrelevancetothestage2
objectivetestexplained
Verdict
Judgesarenotunanimouswhetherthejury,whenaskedtoconsideranalternativeverdictofmanslaughter
ondifferentgrounds,shouldbeasked,intheeventtheyreturnsuchaverdict,onwhatbasistheyconvicted.
Thematterisinthediscretionofthetrialjudge.However,theCourtofAppealhaswarnedofthedangersof
askingthequestionincertaincases.Somejurorsmayhavedecideduponmanslaughterononebasiswhile
otherspreferredanother.Thejurymaydeclinetorevealthebasisoftheirdecision.
623
Ifthejuryaretoldfrom
theoutsetthatiftheyconvictofmanslaughtertheywillbeaskedonwhichbasistheyconvictedthedanger
shouldbeavoided.Ifawrittenroutetoverdictisprovidedandthejuryfollowstheprogressionofquestions
faithfully,thedangerthattheywillnotbeunanimousastothebasisforaverdictofmanslaughterwillbe
minimal.Iftheyaredirectedthatthereshouldbeaunanimousanswertoeachquestion,thedangershouldbe
eliminated.
Illustration killing by stabbing - provocation anxiety disorder whether sensitivity and touchiness
an admissible characteristic - drink taken diminished responsibility
IfyouaresurethatthedefendantbyhisdeliberateactunlawfullykilledVandthat,atthetimeofhisactof
stabbingV,heintendedtokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,heisguiltyofmurdersubjecttothedefenceof
provocation,or,inthealternative,diminishedresponsibility.
Provocation
Provocationisanissueraisedintheevidence.Itisnotforthedefendanttoprovethathewasprovokedbut
fortheprosecutiontoprovesothatyouaresurethatprovocationisexcluded.Forthatreasonitisdesirable
thatyouconsiderprovocationfrst.
Footnotes
623
SeeCawthorne[1996]2CrAppR(S)445(wherethealternativeswerelackofintent,provocationandgrossnegligence)fora
usefulanalysisofthecases.SeealsoChapter5(10)AgreementontheFactualBasisfortheVerdict
33S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thewordprovocationinordinaryusagecanmeananyannoyingremarkorbehaviour.Butinthecontext
ofatrialformurderithasaspecifclegalmeaningwhichIneedtoexplain.Provocationiswordsspokenor
actsdonebyVwhichwouldcauseanyreasonablepersonandactuallycausedthedefendantsuddenlyand
temporarilytolosehisselfcontrolandkill.Thereisthereforeatwo-stagetesttobeapplied.
Loss of control under provocation
Thefrststageis:Wasthedefendant,bywordsspokenoractsdonebyV,suddenlyandtemporarilycaused
tolosehisselfcontrol?Thedefendanttoldyouthatlocallyhehasareputationforbeinghomosexual.He
saysthatinfactheisnot.WhilethedefendantwasatthebarV,hesaid,calledtohim,YoureaWus.
ThedefendantturnedandaskedVwhathehadsaid.Vreplied,Icalledyoualady-man.Thedefendant
wentovertoVandprotested.Vlaughedathim.Vplacedahandoneachsideofthedefendantsfaceand
kissedhimonthelips.AsVstoodback,thedefendanttookaknifefromhispocketandstabbedVoncetothe
chest.Vdiedbeforetheambulancearrived.No-oneelserecallsVusingthewordsWusorlady-man,but
severalcustomersclosebyconfrmthatthedefendantwasprotestingatsomethingVhadsaidandthatV
kissedthedefendantonthelips.
Thedefendantranoutofthepublichouse.Anhourlaterhegavehimselfuptothepolice.Whenhewas
cautionedheimmediatelygavetheaccounthehasnowgiventoyou.
YoumayconcludethatVundoubtedlydiduseprovocativewordsandconducttowardsthedefendant.The
defendantdescribeshisreactionas,Ilostit.Whatisrequiredisasuddenandtemporarylossofselfcontrol.
Mereanger,oradesiretoteachValessonfortheinsult,isnotenough.Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantdid
notlosehisselfcontrol;if,inotherwords,youaresurethedefendantreactedwiththoughtanddeliberation:
provocationdoesnotapplyandyouwouldmoveontoconsiderdiminishedresponsibility.If,however,you
concludethatthedefendantwasormayhavebeenprovokedtolosehisselfcontrol,youreachthesecond
stage.
Reasonable man with the defendants characteristics
The second stage is: would a reasonable person placed in the defendants situation have reacted as the
defendantdidbystabbingVinthechest?
Whoisthereasonablepersonforthispurpose?Heisapersonofthesameageandgenderasthedefendant.
Heisthereforeamanof23years.Heisapersonhavingthepowersofselfcontrolwhichyouwouldexpect
ofanordinary,soberperson.Youhaveheardthatthedefendanthadconsumed6pintsofcider.Youmust
assume that the reasonable person would have been sober and not under the infuence of alcohol. The
reasonablepersonissomeonewiththedefendantscharacteristics.Heisthereforeapersonwhohasbeen
tauntedabouthissexualityonpreviousoccasions.Thatmaywellaffectthegravityoftheprovocationfor
thisdefendantandissomethingyouneedtoconsiderwhenjudgingtheresponseofapersonwithordinary
powersofselfcontrol.However,youhavealsoheardthatthedefendanthasbeendiagnosedassuffering
ananxietydisorder,onefeatureofwhichmaybetorenderthedefendantmorethanusuallysensitiveand
touchy.Itisdisputedbytheprosecutionthatthiswasasymptomofthedefendantsdisorder.Ifyouthought
thatafeatureofthedefendantsdisorderwasormayhavebeenanunusualtendencytowardssensitivity
ortouchinessitisafeaturewhich,forpresentpurposes,youmustignore.Thereasonisthatthereasonable
personmustbepresumedtohaveordinarypowersofselfcontrolandnottobeunusuallysensitiveortouchy
whensubjectedtotaunting.
1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes
33o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
If you are sure the reasonable man I have described would not have reacted under provocation as the
defendant did, provocation is excluded and you can proceed to consider diminished responsibility. If you
concludethatthereasonablemayhavereactedasthedefendantdid,yourverdictshouldbenotguiltyof
murderbutguiltyofmanslaughteronthegroundofprovocation.
Diminished responsibility
Youwillneedtoconsiderdiminishedresponsibilityonlyifyouaresurethattheprosecutionhasprovedthe
elementsofmurderanddisprovedprovocation.
Diminished responsibility also has a particular legal meaning which I need to explain: If the defendant,
whenheattackedV,wassufferingfromanabnormalityofmind,arisingfrominherentcausesorinducedby
diseaseorinjury,whichsubstantiallyimpairedhismentalresponsibilityforhisact,thenhisresponsibilityis
diminishedandheshouldbefoundnotguiltyofmurderandguiltyofthelesseroffenceofmanslaughter.
Theburdenisuponthedefencetomakegoodthisdefenceonthebalanceofprobabilities.Inotherwords,
beforeyoufoundthedefendantguiltyofmanslaughteronthisgroundyouwouldneedtoconcludethatit
wasmorelikelythannot,ontheevidence,thatthedefendantsresponsibilitywasdiminished.
Letusnowconsidereachelementofthedefence.
Abnormality of mind
Abnormalityofmindisnotamedicaltermanditdoesnothavetobeamentalillnessasyouwouldusually
understandit.Itisalegaltermandmeansastateofmindwhichissodifferentfromthatofordinarypeople
thatyouwouldrecogniseitasabnormal.Thetermabnormalityofmindcoversallitsworkings,suchasthe
abilitytoformappropriately,andtoexercise,perception,understanding,judgmentandwill.
Thedefencecaseisthatthedefendantwassufferingfromananxietydisorderwhichisinfactawellrecognised
psychiatricconditionarisingfrominherentcauses.Thedefendanthadvisitedageneralpractitioneron4
occasionsduringthe2yearperiodbeforethekillingcomplainingofsymptomssuchasheadache,sweating,
andpalpitations.Ononeoccasionhecomplainedofthefactthathehadbeenwronglyidentifedinhis
neighbourhoodashomosexualandwasbeingsubjectedtotaunts.Hewasprescribedtranquillisersbutwas
notreferredforexpertpsychiatricopinion.DrAandDrB,onbehalfofthedefendant,andDrC,onbehalf
oftheprosecution,toldyouthatintheiropinionthedefendantwassufferingfromtheeffectsofananxiety
disorder.Theydifferedonlyastotheseverityofthesymptoms.
Substantial impairment
Thedefendantsresponsibilitywasonlydiminished,however,ifyouconclude,onbalance,thatasaresultof
thedefendantsabnormalityofmind,hismentalresponsibilityforthekillingwassubstantiallyimpaired.
Thisrequiresyoutoconsidertowhatextentthedefendantsstateofminddifferedfromthatoftheordinary
person. Was it so abnormal that the defendants mental responsibility was substantially impaired?
SubstantiallyisanordinaryEnglishwordtowhichyouwillbringyourownexperience.Itmeanslessthan
totalandmorethantrivial.Whereyoudrawthelineisforyourgoodjudgment.
337
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
DrAandDrBexpressedtheopinionthatthedefendantsstateofmindwasverysignifcantlydifferentfrom
normal.Theprobablereactionofapersonsufferingananxietydisorderwastobeextremelysensitiveto
criticismorteasing,buttowithdrawfromratherthantoconfrontthesourceofhisanxiety.DrBcalledit
internalising. However, under the pressure of prolonged or extreme and direct insult the defendant was
liabletorespondwithanexplosionoffrustrationandanger.Intheiropinion,thatishowthedefendant
reactedonthisoccasion.Accordingly,theirviewisthatthedefendantsmentalresponsibilitywassignifcantly
impaired.Theyleavetoyouthequestionwhetheritwassubstantiallyimpaired.
DrCdisagreed.Hepointedoutthatonnopreviousoccasionhadthedefendantgivenventtohisfeelingsin
thisway.Hehadnotbeforecomplainedofirritabilityortouchiness.Whileheacceptedthatthedefendant
sufferedananxietydisorder,hedidnotacceptthatitwasofaseveritywhichrenderedhisstateofmind,in
thecontextyouareconsidering,radicallydifferentfromnormal.Itwouldbeanaturalresponsetotaunting
aboutonessexualitytobecomeembitteredandresentful.Itwasnot,inhisopinion,aresponsebrought
aboutbythedefendantsabnormalityofmind.
Thedefendantwascrossexaminedabouthispossessionoftheknife.Hesaidhehadstartedtocarryaknife
about6monthsbeforethekilling.Hecarrieditforprotectionincasehewasattacked.Thedefendantdenied
thathehadarmedhimselfsoastotakeretributionagainstanyonewhotauntedhim.Hewasaskedwhy
thenhisresponsetoVswordsandactionswastothrusttheknifeintohischest.Thedefendantsaidhehad
hadenough.
Youmustexaminetheevidenceoftheexpertsandreachyourownjudgementtowhatextentthedefendants
mentalresponsibilitywasimpairedbyhisabnormalityofmind.Youshould,ofcourse,whenreachingthat
judgmenttakeaccountofeverythingyouhaveheardabouttheincidentandthedefendant,andnotjust
confneyourselvestotheopinionsoftheexperts.
Alcohol
All the medical experts agreed that alcohol probably had a part to play in the defendants behaviour.
Alcoholcanhaveadisinhibitingeffectupononespowersofselfcontrol.Somepeoplegetangryindrink;
othersbecomedocile.Totheextentthatyouconsiderthedefendantsstateofmindmayhavebeenaffected
byalcoholhehadvoluntarilyconsumedyoushouldleaveitoutofaccountwhenjudgingthedefendants
mentalresponsibility.Thereasonforthisisthatweareallinlawresponsiblefortheeffectsofalcoholwhich
wechoosetoconsume.Thequestionyouneedtoresolveiswhetherthedefendantsmentalresponsibility
forthekillingissubstantiallyimpairedbytheanxietydisorderfromwhichhewassuffering,quiteapartfrom
theeffectsofalcohol.Ifyouconcludeitismorelikelythannotthatitwas,yourverdictwillbenotguiltyof
murderbutguiltyofmanslaughteronthegroundofdiminishedresponsibility.
1o: defenCes
338
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youmayhaveagooddealofgroundtocover.Toassistyoutoaddressthesequestionsinthecorrectorder
andtoarriveatyourverdict,Ihavepreparedawrittennote.Letusreadittogether.
Question 1
Didthedefendant,byhisdeliberateandunlawfulact,killV?
Intent
Question 2
Didthedefendant,whenhestabbedV,intendeithertokillortocausehimreallyseriousinjury?
Ifyouaresurethedefendantintendedtokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,proceedtoquestion3
Ifyouarenotsurethedefendantintendedtokillortocausereallyseriousinjury,verdictnotguiltyof
murderbutguiltyofmanslaughteronthegroundoflackofintent
Provocation
Question 3
WhenthedefendantstabbedVhadhe,suddenlyandtemporarily,losthisselfcontrolasaresultofwords
usedbyortheconductofV?
Ifyouaresurehehadnot,proceedtoquestion5
Ifyouconcludethathemayhavedone,proceedtoquestion4
Question 4
Wouldareasonablemanplacedinthedefendantssituationhavereactedtotheprovocationandkilledas
thedefendantdid?SeeNote 1below
Ifyouaresurehewouldnot,proceedtoquestion5
Ifyouconcludethathemayhavedone,verdictnotguiltyofmurderbutguiltyofmanslaughteron
thegroundofprovocation
Diminished responsibility
Question 5
Wasthedefendant,whenheattackedV,sufferinganabnormalityofmind?
Agreed.Proceedtoquestion6
33
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 6
Didthedefendantsabnormalityofmindsubstantiallyimpairhismentalresponsibilityforthekilling?See
Note 2 below
If you conclude that it is more likely than not that the defendants mental responsibility was
substantially impaired, verdict not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the ground of
diminishedresponsibility
If you conclude that it is more likely than not that the defendants mental responsibility was not
substantiallyimpaired,verdictguiltyofmurder
Note 1:
The reasonable man whose reaction you are considering would be of the same age and gender
as the defendant. He would be a man who had been taunted before about his sexuality. He
would be a man commonly treated as homosexual when he was not. He would be a sober man
with ordinary powers of self control, not unusually aggressive and not unusually sensitive.
Note 2:
In deciding whether the defendants mental responsibility was substantially impaired you
should leave out of account the effect on his mind of alcohol voluntarily consumed.
Note 3:
If you fnd the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter you will be asked by
the court clerk whether that is on the ground of lack of intent or provocation or diminished
responsibility.
624

Sources
Archbold:19-50/65;Blackstone:B1.22/30
Footnotes
624
SeeVerdictabove
340
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
625
Note:Considerablechangestothepartialdefenceofdiminishedresponsibilityprovocationwilltakeplacewhena
commencementdateissetforChapter1,Part2theCoronersandJusticeAct2009
626
TobedistinguishedfromMNaghteninsanityandnotadefencetoattemptedmurder(Campbell[1997]CrimLR495),nor
followingafndingofunftnesstopleadundersection4A(2)CriminalProcedure(Insanity)Act1964(Antoine[2001]2AC340)
627
Bradshaw[1986]82CrAppR79(CA)
628
[1960]2QB396
(6) Diminished Responsibility
625
Introduction
Section 2 Homicide Act 1957
1. Diminishedresponsibilityisapartialdefenceonlytotheoffenceofmurder.
626
Itwasprovidedbysection2
HomicideAct1957whichreads:
(1)Whereapersonkillsorisapartytothekillingofanother,heshallnotbeconvictedofmurderifhe
wassufferingfromsuchabnormalityofmind(whetherarisingfromaconditionofarrestedorretarded
developmentofmindoranyinherentcausesorinducedbydiseaseorinjury)assubstantiallyimpaired
hismentalresponsibilityforhisactsandomissionsindoingorbeingapartytothekilling.
(2) Onachargeofmurder,itshallbeforthedefencetoprovethatthepersonchargedisbyvirtueof
thissectionnotliabletobeconvictedofmurder.
(3) Apersonwhobutforthissectionwouldbeliable,whetherasprincipalorasaccessory,tobe
convictedofmurdershallbeliableinsteadtobeconvictedofmanslaughter.
(4) Thefactthatonepartytoakillingisbyvirtueofthissectionnotliabletobeconvictedofmurder
shallnotaffectthequestionwhetherthekillingamountedtomurderinthecaseofanyotherpartyto
it.
2. Theburdenofestablishingdiminishedresponsibilityliesonthedefendantandthestandardofproofis
thebalanceofprobabilities.
Evidence
3. Supportingmedicalevidenceisrequired.Formerly,therulewasthatthedefendantsdescriptionsof
eventsandsymptomswhichformedthebasisfortheexpertsopinionwerehearsayandrequiredstrict
proof,althoughjudgestendedtoallowsomelatitudetothedefencewhenthedefendantsmentalstate
madeitundesirablethatheshouldgiveevidence.Now,inanappropriatecase,thedefencemayseekthe
admissionofthehearsayintheinterestsofjusticeundersection114(1)(d)orbyagreementundersection
114(1)(c)CriminalJusticeAct2003.Nevertheless,wheretheunderlyingfactsareindisputetheabsenceof
admissibleevidencetosupporttheexpertsconclusionmaybethelegitimatesubjectofcommentbythe
trialjudge.
627
Abnormality of Mind
4. Themeaningofthetermabnormalityofmind,whichisnotamedicalterm,wasconsideredbytheCourt
ofCriminalAppealinByrne
628
.LordParkerCJsaid:
341
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
Abnormality of mind, which has to be contrasted with the time-honoured expression in the
MNaughtenRulesdefectofreason,meansastateofmindsodifferentfromthatofordinaryhuman
beingsthatthereasonablemanwouldtermitabnormal.Itappearstoustobewideenoughtocoverthe
mindsactivitiesinallitsaspects,notonlytheperceptionofphysicalactsandmatters,andtheabilityto
formarationaljudgmentastowhetheranactisrightorwrong,butalsotheabilitytoexercisewillpower
tocontrolphysicalactsinaccordancewiththatrationaljudgment.....
Whethertheaccusedwasatthetimeofthekillingsufferingfromanyabnormalityofmindinthebroad
sensewhichwehaveindicatedaboveisaquestionforthejury.Onthisquestionmedicalevidenceisno
doubtofimportance,butthejuryareentitledtotakeintoconsiderationalltheevidence,includingthe
actsorstatementsoftheaccusedandhisdemeanour.Theyarenotboundtoacceptthemedicalevidence
ifthereisothermaterialbeforethemwhich,intheirgoodjudgment,confictswithitandoutweighsit.
The aetiology of the abnormality of mind (namely, whether it arose from a condition of arrested or
retardeddevelopmentofmindoranyinherentcauses,orwasinducedbydiseaseorinjury)does,however,
seemtobeamattertobedeterminedonexpertevidence.
Substantial Impairment
5. LordParkerCJcontinued:
Theexpressionmentalresponsibilityforhisactspointstoaconsiderationoftheextenttowhichthe
accusedsmindisanswerableforhisphysicalactswhichmustincludeaconsiderationoftheextentofhis
abilitytoexercisewillpowertocontrolhisphysicalacts......
Assumingthatthejuryaresatisfedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthattheaccusedwassufferingfrom
abnormalityofmindfromoneofthecausesspecifedintheparenthesisofthesubsection,thecrucial
questionneverthelessarises:wastheabnormalitysuchassubstantiallyimpairedhismentalresponsibility
forhisactsindoingorbeingapartytothekilling?Thisisaquestionofdegreeandessentiallyonefor
thejury.Medicalevidenceis,ofcourse,relevant,butthequestioninvolvesadecisionnotmerelyasto
whethertherewassomeimpairmentofthementalresponsibilityoftheaccusedforhisactsbutwhether
suchimpairmentcanproperlybecalledsubstantial,amatteruponwhichjuriesmayquitelegitimately
differfromdoctors.
6. InLloyd
629
theCourtofCriminalAppealapprovedthetrialjudgesdirectionastothemeaningofthe
wordsubstantialinthecontextofimpairmentofmentalresponsibility:
....yourowncommonsensewilltellyouwhatitmeans.ThisfarIwillgo.Substantialdoesnotmeantotal,
thatistosaythementalresponsibilityneednotbetotallyimpaired,sotospeakdestroyedaltogether.At
theotherendofthescalesubstantialdoesnotmeantrivialorminimal.Itissomethinginbetweenand
Parliamenthasleftittoyou....tosayontheevidence:wasthementalresponsibilityimpairedand,ifso,
wasitsubstantiallyimpaired?
Footnotes
629
[1967]1QB175,50CrAppR61
342
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7. InKhan
630
AikensLJexplainedthatLordParkersformulationofthetestofimpairmentwasrelevantto:
First,thedegreetowhichthedefendantcomprehendedwhatphysicalactshewasdoing,orwhathe
wasomittingtodoinrelationtothekilling.Secondly,thedegreetowhichthedefendanthad(atthat
time)anypowertoexercisecontroloverhisactionsoromissionsindoingorbeingapartytothekilling.
Hecontinued:
Scientifcunderstandingofhowthemindworksandtheextenttowhichstatesofmindandphysical
responsestothemhavephysicalorchemicalcauseshaveundoubtedlyadvancedconsiderablysinceLord
Parkermadethosestatements.Butweventuretosuggestthat,eventoday,itisimpossibletoprovide
anyaccuratescientifcmeasurementoftheextenttowhichaparticularpersonwhoissufferingfroman
abnormalityofmindresultingfromoneofthecausessetoutintheparenthesesinsection2(1)could
understandorcontrolhisphysicalimpulsesonaparticularoccasion.Inotherwords,thereisnosimple
scientifctestofwhetheradefendantsmentalresponsibilityforhisactsandomissionsindoingorbeinga
partytothekillingissubstantiallyimpaired.
Consumption of Alcohol
8. Notinfrequentlythecourtisfacedwithadefendantsaidtobesufferingfromanabnormalityofmind
withinthemeaningofsection2andfromtheeffectsoftheconsumptionofalcohol.Thealcoholmayor
maynot,butusuallywillhave,contributedtotheabnormalityofmindatthetimeofthekilling.Untilthe
decisionoftheHouseofLordsinDietschmann
631
juriesweredirectedthatifthekillingwouldnothave
occurredhadthedefendantbeensoberdiminishedresponsibilitywasdisproved.TheHouseheldthatthis
wasanerror;thetestwassimplywhether,ignoringthecontributionofalcohol,thedefendantsmental
responsibilitywassubstantiallyimpaired.LordHuttonexplainedhisview,withwhichtheHouseagreed,
asfollows:
Ithinkthatinreferringtosubstantialimpairmentofmentalresponsibilitythesubsectiondoesnotrequire
theabnormalityofmindtobethesolecauseofthedefendantsactsindoingthekilling.Inmyopinion,
evenifthedefendantwouldnothavekilledifhehadnottakendrink,thecausativeeffectofthedrinkdoes
notnecessarilypreventanabnormalityofmindsufferedbythedefendantfromsubstantiallyimpairinghis
mentalresponsibilityforhisfatalacts.
632
Alcohol dependency syndrome

10. Forcasesinwhichitiscontendedthattheabnormalityofmindwasinducedbyalcoholdependency
syndromereferenceshouldbemadetoTandy
633
,Wood
634
andStewart
635
.InWood,theCourtofAppeal
re-visitedtheissueinthelightofDietschmann.TheeffectofWoodandStewartisthatvoluntary
Footnotes
630
631
[2003]1AC1209,[2003]UKHL10
632
18
633
[1989]1WLR350,87CrAppR45
634
[2008]3AllER898,[2008]EWCACrim1305
635
[2009]EWCACrim593
343
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
intoxicationisnotabartoapleaofdiminishedresponsibilitywherethejuryacceptsthatthe
defendantwassufferingfromalcoholdependencysyndrome.Thejuryisrequiredtomakea
judgementwhethertheconsumptionwasvoluntaryorwasinducedbytheirresistiblecravingbrought
aboutbythealcoholicdisease.InlinewiththedecisioninDietschmanntheCourtheldthattothe
extenttheconsumptionwasvoluntaryitseffectsshouldbeputtoonesideandajudgementmade
whetherthediseaseitselfsubstantiallyreducedthedefendantsmentalresponsibility.InWood,the
President,JudgeLJ,explainedthedecisionasfollows
636
:
InourjudgmentDietschmannrequiresare-assessmentofthewayinwhichTandyisappliedinthe
context of alcohol dependency syndrome where observable brain damage has not occurred. The
sharpeffectofthedistinctiondrawninTandybetweencaseswherebraindamagehasoccurredasa
resultofalcoholdependencysyndromeandthosewhereithasnot,isnolongerappropriate.Naturally,
wherebraindamagehasoccurredthejurymaybemorelikelytoconcludethatthedefendantsuffers
from an abnormality of mind induced by disease or illness, but whether it has occurred or not,
logically consistent with Dietschmann, the same question (i.e. whether it has been established that
thedefendantssyndromeisofsuchanextentandnaturethatitconstitutesanabnormalityofmind
inducedbydiseaseorillness)arisesfordecision.Thatisforthejury.Ifthesyndromedoesnotconstitute
suchanabnormalityofmind,diminishedresponsibilitybasedontheconsumptionofalcoholwillfail.
If, on the other hand, it does, the jury must then be directed to address the question whether
the defendants mental responsibility for his actions at the time of the killing was substantially
impaired as a result of the syndrome. In deciding that question the jury should focus exclusively
on the effect of alcohol consumed by the defendant as a direct result of his illness or disease and
ignore the effect of any alcohol consumed voluntarily. Assumingthatthejuryhasdecidedthatthe
syndrome constitutes an abnormality of mind induced by disease or illness, its possible impact and
signifcanceintheindividualcasemustbeaddressed.Theresolutionofthisissueembracesquestions
such as whether the defendants craving for alcohol was or was not irresistible, and whether his
consumptionofalcoholintheperiodleadinguptothekillingwasvoluntary(andifso,towhatextent)
or was not voluntary, and leads to the ultimate decision, which is whether the defendants mental
responsibility for his actions when killing the deceased was substantially impaired as a result of the
alcoholconsumedunderthebanefulinfuenceofthesyndrome.[Boldemphasisadded]
11. InStewarttheCourtofAppealrevisitedtheadvicegiveninWood(atparagraph10above).Thejudgment
containsahelpfulanalysisofexpertevidencegivenatMrStewartstrialanditsimpactuponthejurys
task.Astothejurysassessmentofthedegreeofimpairmentthecourtconcludedthattoinvitethe
jurytoattempttoseparateoutalcoholconsumedvoluntarilyinordertoignoreitscontributiontothe
abnormalityofmindwasprobablyaskingtoomuch.LordJudgeCJsaid:
29.TheeffectofWoodwastoaligntheprincipleswhichapplywhenthedefendantsalcoholdependency
syndromehasnot(yet)causeddiscerniblebraindamagetothosewhereithas.Theconsumptionofvast
amountsofalcoholmaythereforereducemurdertomanslaughter,frst,whentheeffectoftheintoxication
issoextremethattheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovethenecessaryintenttokillorcausegrievousbodily
harm(RvSheehanandMoore)andsecond,assumingthatthenecessaryintentisprovednotwithstanding
theconsumptionofalcohol,onthebasisofdiminishedresponsibility,providedthedefendantprovesthat
hewassufferingfromsuchabnormalityofmindinducedbythediseaseorillnessofalcoholdependency
syndrome that his mental responsibility for his actions in doing the killing was substantially impaired.
Footnotes
636
41
344
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
30.Weofferthesesuggestionstotrialjudgesstructuringasummingupforthepurposesofthedefence
ofdiminishedresponsibilitybasedonalcoholdependencysyndrome.Atanearlystagethejudgemay
wishtorefectontheordinaryprinciplesrelatingtovoluntaryintoxication.Heshouldthenoutlinethe
ingredientsofthedefence,effectivelyparaphrasingsection2ofthe1957Actinthefamiliarway.
31.Thejuryshouldbedirectedtodecide,frst,whetherthedefendantwasindeedsufferingfroman
abnormalityofmindatthetimeofthekilling.ForthispurposeRvByrne[1960]2QB396continuestobe
ofassistance.Thejudgeislikelytodirectthejurythatitdoesnotnecessarilyfollowfromthefactthatthe
defendantsuffersfromalcoholdependencysyndromethathehasestablishedthenecessaryabnormality
ofmind.Thisdependsonthejurysfndingsaboutthenatureandextentofthesyndromeandwhether,
lookingatthematterbroadly,hisconsumptionofalcoholbeforethekillingisfairlytoberegardedasthe
involuntaryresultofanirresistiblecravingfororcompulsiontodrink.
32.Ifthedefendantprovesthenecessaryabnormalityofmind,thesecondquestion,iswhetherthiswas
causedbydiseaseorillness.Inthisclassofcase,theanswertothissecondquestionwillnormallyfollow
fromwhateveranswerisappropriatetothefrstquestion.
33.Finally, and assuming that the particular defendants alcohol dependency syndrome did indeed
constituteanabnormalityofmindduetodiseaseorillness,whichwaspresentatthetimeofthekilling,
directionsaboutwhetherthedefendantsmentalresponsibilityforwhathedidwassubstantiallyimpaired
shouldbeaddressedinconventionalterms.Thejuryshouldbeassistedwiththeconceptofsubstantial
impairment,andmayproperlybeinvitedtorefectonthedifferencebetweenafailurebythedefendant
toresisthisimpulsestobehaveasheactuallydid,andaninabilityconsequentonittoresistthem.
34.In answering their questions, the jury should be directed to consider all the evidence, including
the opinions of the medical experts. The issues likely to arise in this kind of case and on which they
should be invited to form their own judgment will include (a) the extent and seriousness of the
defendants dependency, if any, on alcohol (b) the extent to which his ability to control his drinking
or to choose whether to drink or not, was reduced, (c) whether he was capable of abstinence from
alcohol, and if so, (d) for how long, and (e) whether he was choosing for some particular reason,
such as a birthday celebration, to decide to get drunk, or to drink even more than usual. Without
seeking to be prescriptive about considerations relevant to an individual case, the defendants
pattern of drinking in the days leading to the day of the killing, and on the day of the killing itself,
and notwithstanding his consumption of alcohol, his ability, if any, to make apparently sensible
and rational decisions about ordinary day to day matters at the relevant time, may all bear on the
jurys decision whether diminished responsibility is established in the context of this individual
defendants alcohol dependency syndrome.
35. We acknowledge that this decision will rarely be easy. Indeed it is fair to say that diminished
responsibilityhasalwaysraisedcomplexanddiffcultissuesforthejury,notleastbecausethedefence
usually involves conficting medical evidence addressing legal, not medical concepts, for a jury of lay
personstodecide.Thejuryisoftencalledupontoconfrontproblemsrelatingtotheoperationofthe
mindwithwhichtheywillbeunfamiliar.Neverthelesstheresolutionoftheseproblemscontinuestobe
theresponsibilityofthejury,andwhenaddressingtheirresponsibilitytheyareinevitablyrequiredtomake
thenecessaryjudgmentsnotjustonthebasisofexpertmedicalopinionbutalsobyusingtheircollective
commonsenseandinsightintothepracticalrealitieswhichunderpintheindividualcase.[Boldemphasis
added]
34S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
12. LordJudgesadviceatparagraph34ofStewartdoesnotattempttoaddressthecausativelink,ifany,
betweenthealcoholdependencesyndromeandthekilling.Thesuggestionisofferedthatthejury
frsthastodecidewhetherthereisanycausativelinkbetweenthedefendantsbraindamage,orhis
(predominantly)involuntaryexcessivedrinking,andtheactwhichcauseddeath.Thereusuallyis,if
onlyinthedisinhibitiongeneratedbyexcessivequantitiesofalcohol,whichcanresultinanexplosionof
temperanduncontrolledviolence.If,however,thedefendanthasexhibitednoprevioussignsofviolence
whileinastateofexcessivedrunkennessthejurymaywishtoconsiderthequestionoftherelevanceof
thesyndrometothedefendantsbehaviourinthepresentoccasion.
Directions
637
Whetherthedefendantsmentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyimpairedisajuryandnotamedicalquestion
andsaveintheveryexceptionalcasethedefenceofdiminishedresponsibilityshouldnotbewithdrawnfrom
thejury.
638
Thejuryshouldbetoldthattheyneedtoconsiderthedefenceofdiminishedresponsibilityonlyifthe
prosecutionhasestablishedtheelementsofmurder,thattheburdenofestablishingdiminishedresponsibility
restsonthedefence,andthatthestandardisthebalanceofprobabilities.Ifthedefendantalsoreliesonlackof
intentandprovocation,theyshouldbeconsideredinthatorder,withdiminishedresponsibilitylast.
639
Theevidenceofthemedicalexpertswillneedtobecarefullyanalysedandexplained.
Thedirectionshouldinclude:
Whatismeantbyabnormalityofmind
Whatabnormalityofmindisreliedupon
Theexpertopinionofaetiologyoftheabnormalitycontendedandthecontributionmadebythe
abnormalitytothekilling
Thatthedefenceappliesonlywhenthedefendantsmentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyimpaired
bytheabnormalityofmind
Anexplanationofthewordsubstantially
Whereappropriate,thattheeffectsofthevoluntaryconsumptionofdrinkordrugsshouldbeignored.
Thequestionforthejuryiswhether,quiteapartfromthecontributiontothedefendantsstateofmind
ofdrinkordrugsvoluntarilytaken,thedefendantsmentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyimpairedby
theabnormalitycontended
Wheretheabnormalitycontendedisalcoholdependencysyndrome,seeStewartparagraph11above
Footnotes
637
ForanIllustrationofdirectionsonProvocationandDiminishedResponsibilityseeChapter16(5)Provocation
638
Khan[2009]EWCACrim1569at42
639
Thereasonisthatintentisanelementoftheoffenceofmurderwhichtheprosecutionmustprove,inprovocationthe
prosecutionbearstheburdenofproof,andindiminishedresponsibilitytheburdenisonthedefendant.
34o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Verdict
Judgesarenotunanimouswhetherthejury,whenaskedtoconsideranalternativeverdictofmanslaughteron
differentgrounds,shouldbeasked,intheeventtheyreturnsuchaverdict,onwhatbasistheyconvicted.The
matterisinthediscretionofthetrialjudge.However,theCourtofAppealhaswarnedofthedangersofasking
thequestionincertaincases.Somejurorsmayhavedecideduponmanslaughterononebasiswhileothers
preferredanother.Thejurymaydeclinetorevealthebasisoftheirdecision.
640
Ifthejuryistoldfromtheoutset
thatiftheyconvictofmanslaughtertheywillbeaskedonwhichbasistheyconvictedthedangershouldbe
avoided.Ifawrittenroutetoverdictisprovidedandthejuryfollowstheprogressionofquestionsfaithfully,the
dangerthattheywillnotbeunanimousastothebasisforaverdictofmanslaughterwillbeminimal.Iftheyare
directedthatthereshouldbeaunanimousanswertoeachquestion,thedangershouldbeeliminated.
Illustration abnormality of mind - reactive depression alcohol voluntarily consumed
Iftheprosecutionhasprovedsothatyouaresurethatthedefendant,byhisdeliberate,unlawfulact,killed
Vintendingtokillhimortodohimreallyseriousinjury,thenyouwillbesureoftheelementsofmurder.You
would, therefore, fnd the defendant guilty of murder unless you conclude that diminished responsibility
appliesinhiscase.
DiminishedresponsibilityhasaparticularlegalmeaningwhichIneedtoexplain:Ifthedefendant,whenhe
attackedV,wassufferingfromanabnormalityofmind,arisingfrominherentcausesorinducedbydiseaseor
injury,whichsubstantiallyimpairedhismentalresponsibilityforhisact,thenhisresponsibilityisdiminished
andheshouldbefoundnotguiltyofmurderandguiltyofthelesseroffenceofmanslaughter.
beforeyoufoundthedefendantguiltyofmanslaughteronthisgroundyouwouldneedtoconcludethatit
wasmorelikelythannot,ontheevidence,thatthedefendantsresponsibilitywasdiminished.
Abnormality of mind
Thedefencecaseisthatthedefendantwassufferingfromreactivedepressionbroughtaboutbytheprevailing
circumstancesofhislife.ItwasexplainedbyDrAandDrB,whogaveevidenceonbehalfofthedefendant,
thatbytheworddepressiontheydonotmeanthatthedefendantjustfeltloworsadinmood,thesense
inwhichyouandImightsay,Imdepressed.Theymeanthatthedefendantwassufferingfromaclinical
illness,diagnosedonlyafteradetailedconsiderationofhissymptoms.
It arose, they said, partly from injury caused by lifes events and partly by the defendants inherent
susceptibilitytodepression.
Footnotes
640
SeeCawthorne[1996]2CrAppR(S)445(wherethealternativeswerelackofintent,provocationandgrossnegligence)fora
usefulanalysisofthecases.SeealsoChapter5(10)AgreementontheFactualBasisfortheVerdict
347
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
The prosecution case, which is founded upon the evidence of Dr B, is that although the defendant was
sufferingfromclinicaldepressionitwasnotsevere.
Inotherwords,thereisnodisputebetweentheexpertsthatthedefendantwassufferingfromanabnormality
ofmindwhenhekilledV.
Thedefendantsresponsibilitywasonlydiminished,however,ifyouconcludeitismorelikelythannotthat,
asaresultofthedefendantsdepression,hismentalresponsibilityforthekillingwassubstantiallyimpaired.
This requires you to consider to what extent the defendants state of mind differed from that of the
ordinaryperson.Wasitsoabnormalthatthedefendantsmentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyreduced?
SubstantiallyisanordinaryEnglishwordtowhichyouwillbringyourownexperience.Itmeanslessthan
totalandmorethantrivial.Whereyoudrawthelineisforyourgoodjudgment.
Itisherethattheprosecutionhastakenissuewiththedefence.Ishallremindyouoftheevidenceinafew
minutes. In short, Dr C acknowledged that the defendant had, in the 18 months leading to this killing,
sufferedsomesignifcantlosses.First,hisfatherdied.Thedefendantbecamewithdrawn,anxiousandtetchy.
Intime,thisledtoargumentswithhiswifewho,secondly,leftthedefendant,takingwithhertheir2children.
Thirdly,thedefendantswifemetanotherman,thedeceased,V.Fourthly,therewerediffcultieswithaccess
tothechildren.Onthenightofthekilling,thedefendant,bychance,cameuponVinthesamepublichouse.
Theywentoutsidetodiscusstheirdifferencesoverchildcare.Anargumentdevelopedandthedefendant,
tousehiswords,completelylostit.DrAandDrBconcludedthatthedefendantsdepressionwas,atthat
time,moderatetosevere.Theypointtohissleeplessness,hisweightloss,hislethargy,andhisprolonged
periodoflowmoodwithsuicidalthoughts.Intheirview,theunfortunateconsequenceoftheunexpected
confrontationwasanexplosionofemotionalangerinthedefendantwhichwasadirectcauseoftheviolence
whichheused.Theyconcludethatitwastheabilityofthedefendantsmindtoexercisethewillpowerto
controlhisphysicalangerwhichhadbeensubstantiallyimpaired.
Dr C did not agree. In his opinion the defendants depression was, by the time of the killing, mild. The
defendantsstateofmindwasinmostrespectsnotmuchdifferentfromthereactionofanyordinarymanin
hissituation.DrCagreedthatduringtheperiodafterthedefendantswifeleft,thedefendantsufferedhis
deepestandmostprolongedperiodofdepression.Ontheotherhand,hewasoffworkforonlytwoweeks.
Hehelddownaresponsiblejobandheworkedhisshiftsontime.Thisisinconsistentwiththepictureofa
manwhowassignifcantlydisabledbyhisdepression.Furthermore,thedefendanttoldhimthatthathehad
metanotherwomanaboutamonthbeforethekillingandthattheywerediscussingafuturetogether.This
isasignthatthedefendantsmoodwasliftingwithoptimismforanewlife.InDrCsviewthedefendant
wasalmostfullyrecoveredfromhisdepressionbeforethekillingtookplace.Heexplainedthedefendants
explosionofangerasthereactionofajealousmanwhowasembitteredbytheexperienceofthelossofhis
family.
348
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
The effect of alcohol
Thedefendantsaidthathehadconsumedabout6pintsoflagerbeforehecameuponthedeceased.That
wasrathermorethanhewasusedtoandheacceptedthathewastipsy.Heacknowledgedthatalcoholmay
havehadsomethingtodowithhisoutburst.Allthreemedicalexpertsagreethatalcoholhasadisinhibiting
effect.Itmaywellbethatifthedefendanthadnottakenalcoholhewouldhavecontrolledtheimpulse
towardsviolence.
DrAtoldyouthat,notwithstandingtheconsumptionofalcohol,itwashisviewthatthedefendantsmental
responsibilitywassubstantiallyimpairedbytheabnormalityofmindcausedbydepression.DrBtoldyou
thathecouldnothazardanopinionwhatcontributionwasmadebyalcoholandwhatbytheabnormality
ofmind.Hepreferredtoleavethequestiontoyou,thejury.DrCsevidencewasthattheoccasionforthe
defendantsviolencewastheexplosionofangercausedbybitternessandjealousy,fuelledanddisinhibited
byalcohol.
The ultimate question
In putting forward a defence of diminished responsibility the defendant is not entitled to rely on the
effectsofhisvoluntaryconsumptionofalcohol.Thatissomethingforwhichthelawrequireshimtobear
fullresponsibility.Youmayconcludethatalcoholmusthavehadatleastsomedisinhibitingeffectonthe
defendant. That does not, however, disqualify the defendant from relying on the defence. The question
youneedtoresolveiswhether,puttingononesidetheeffectonhismindofdrink,thedefendantsmental
responsibilityforhisactionswassubstantiallyimpairedbyanabnormalityofmindcausedbydepression.If
youconcludeitismorelikelythannotthathismentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyimpairedyourverdict
wouldbeguiltyofmanslaughter.Ifonbalanceyouconcludethatitwasnot,yourverdictwouldbeguiltyof
murder.
Ihavepreparedawrittennotewhichwillassistyouconsidereachofthesequestionsintheirpropersequence.
Question 1
Question 2
Didthedefendant,whenheattackedV,intendeithertokillortocausehimreallyseriousinjury?
34
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 3
Question 4
Note1below
If you conclude the defendant to show that it is more likely than not that the defendants mental
responsibilitywassubstantiallyimpaired,verdictguiltyofmurder
Note 1:
In deciding whether the defendants mental responsibility was substantially impaired you
should leave out of account the effect on his mind of alcohol voluntarily consumed
Note 2:
the court clerk whether that is on the ground of lack of intent or diminished responsibility
641
Illustration alcohol dependency syndrome abnormality of mind - whether alcohol voluntarily
consumed
Iftheprosecutionhasprovedsothatyouaresurethatthedefendant,byhisdeliberate,unlawfulact,killed
Vintendingtokillhimortodohimreallyseriousinjury,thenyouwillbesureoftheelementsofmurder.You
would, therefore, fnd the defendant guilty of murder unless you conclude that diminished responsibility
appliesinhiscase.
DiminishedresponsibilityhasaparticularlegalmeaningwhichIneedtoexplain:Ifthedefendant,whenhe
attackedV,wassufferingfromanabnormalityofmind,arisingfrominherentcausesorinducedbydiseaseor
injury,whichsubstantiallyimpairedhismentalresponsibilityforhisact,thenhisresponsibilityisdiminished
andheshouldbefoundnotguiltyofmurderandguiltyofthelesseroffenceofmanslaughter.
beforeyoufoundthedefendantguiltyofmanslaughteryouwouldneedtoconcludethatitwasmorelikely
thannot,ontheevidence,thatthedefendantsresponsibilitywasdiminished.

Footnotes
641
SeeVerdictabove
3S0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Abnormality of mind
Theabnormalityrelieduponbythedefendantistheeffectofhischronicalcoholism.Alcoholdependency
syndromeisarecognisedpsychiatriccondition.Here,itisnotsuggestedthatthedefendanthadsuffered
braindamageofsuchadegreethatwoulditselfconstituteanabnormalityofmind.Itsmaineffectuponthe
mindistodamageordestroytheindividualschoicewhethertodrinkornot.Theconsultantpsychiatrists
whogaveevidenceforbothsidesallagreethatthedefendantsconditioncausesinhimaninvoluntaryand
irresistiblecravingforalcoholuntilthepointisreachedatwhichthecravingceases.Beyondthatpointthe
defendantnolongercravesalcoholuntilhisblood/alcoholdropssignifcantlyand,ifhecontinuestodrink,
hedoessobecausehechooses.
ThedefendantdescribedhowhewokeupaftertwohoursofsleeptofndVdrinkingwithouthim.
ThedefendantacceptsthathemusthaveexplodedwithrageandattackedVcausinghisdeath.
Theeffectofthealcoholtakenbythedefendantduringthepreviousdaywas,accordingtoallthemedical
experts, to remove the defendants capacity for rational judgment and self control. A blood sample was
takenfromthedefendantatabout8am.Itisagreedthatbycountingbacktheamountofalcoholinthe
bloodatthetimeofthekillingcouldbecalculatedat350mgsalcoholper100mlsofblood.
Totheextentthatthoseeffects,lossofjudgmentandabilitytoexerciseselfcontrol,werecausedbyalcohol
consumedasaconsequenceofhisalcoholicdependencysyndrome,thatis,alcoholconsumedbecausehe
hadnopowertoresistit,thedefendantmayarguethattheyarosefromanabnormalityofmindcaused
by disease. However, the defendant cannot rely upon those effects on his mind which resulted from his
voluntaryconsumptionofalcohol.Thereasonisthatthelawholdsallofusresponsiblefortheeffectuponus
ofalcoholwechoosetodrink.
It is therefore important to consider with some care the evidence as to the defendants consumption of
alcohol during the 6 hour period before he went to sleep at midnight. Dr A and Dr B told you that in
theiropinionthedefendantwasthroughoutsatisfyingthecravingthedefendantssyndromecaused.Dr
C,onbehalfoftheprosecution,disagreed.IninterviewwithDrCthedefendantdescribedhisnormaldays
consumption.Hewoulddrinksteadilyduringtheday.Intheeveninghewouldeithercontinueatasimilar
rateuntilhewenttobedorhemightbinge-drink,dependinguponhowhefelt.Onthenightbeforethe
killing,boththedefendantandVattendedahousepartyatwhichvastquantitiesofalcoholwereconsumed.
Thedefendantsaidhehadseveralcansofstronglagerandabottleandahalfofvodkawhichexceededhis
usualconsumptionbyaconsiderablemeasure.InDrCsopinion,thealcoholconsumedbythedefendant
thatnightwas,forthemostpart,consumedbychoiceandnotcompelledbyhissyndrome.
Takingabroad,commonsenseview,youneedtoconsiderhowmuchofthedefendantsconsumptionthat
nighthecouldnotresistandhowmuchheconsumedbecausehewaspartyingandwantedto.Youarenot
expectedtobringmathematicalprecisiontotheevidencebuttoreachasensibleconclusiononabalanceof
probability.IfyouaccepttheevidenceofDrAandDrBthenallofitwasinvoluntary;if,ontheotherhand,
youaccepttheevidenceofDrCitwasnotverymuch.Inreachingaconclusionyoushould,ofcourse,take
accountofthedefendantsdescriptionofhisconditiontothedoctorsandtoyouwhenhegaveevidence.
3S1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youshouldthenconsiderthefollowingquestion:Towhatextentwastheabnormalityofmindsufferedbythe
defendant(thatis,thelossofjudgmentandtheabilitytoexerciseselfcontrol)occasionedbythesyndrome
ratherthanthevoluntaryconsumptionofalcohol?
Thereasonyouneedtoconsiderthisquestionisthatdiminishedresponsibilityonlyappliesiftheabnormality
ofmindsubstantiallyimpairedthedefendantsmentalresponsibilityforhisacts.Injudgingthatquestionit
istheeffectofthealcoholdependencysyndromecausedbydiseasewhichyouareconsideringratherthan
theeffect,ifany,ofalcoholvoluntarilyconsumed.
Towhatextentdidthedefendantsabnormalityofmindcausedbyalcoholdependencysyndromemake
hisstateofmindtodifferfromthatoftheordinaryperson?Washisstateofmindsoabnormalthatthe
defendantsmentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyreduced?SubstantiallyisanordinaryEnglishwordto
whichyouwillbringyourownexperience.Itmeanslessthantotalandmorethantrivial.Whereyoudraw
thelineisforyourgoodjudgment.
Ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsalcoholdependencysyndromeanditseffectsprobablydidsubstantially
impair his mental responsibility, then your verdict would be not guilty of murder and guilty of the lesser
offenceofmanslaughter.If,ontheotherhand,youconcludethatthealcoholdependencysyndromeand
its effects probably did not substantially impair his mental responsibility, your verdict would be guilty of
murder.
Ihavepreparedawrittennotewhichwillassistyouconsidereachofthesequestionsintheirpropersequence.
Question 1
Question 2
Didthedefendant,whenheattackedV,intendeithertokillortocausehimreallyseriousinjury?
Question 3
3S2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Question 4
Note1below
Ifyouconcludethedefendanthasfailedtoshowthatitismorelikelythannotthatthedefendants
mentalresponsibilitywassubstantiallyimpaired,verdictguiltyofmurder
Note 1:
The substantial impairment must arise from the abnormality relied upon by the defendant
which is alcohol dependency syndrome causing involuntary consumption of alcohol and,
consequently, the loss of rational judgment and the ability to exercise normal self control.
To the extent, if any, that loss of rational judgment and/or the ability to exercise normal self
control were caused by alcohol voluntarily consumed (because the defendant was partying and
wanted to) it does not arise from the alcohol dependency syndrome.

Note 2:
the court clerk whether that is on the ground of lack of intent or diminished responsibility.
642
Sources
Archbold:19.66/80;BlackstoneB1.15/21
Footnotes
642
Judgesarenotunanimousonthequestionwhetheritisappropriatetoseekanexplanationofthegroundfortheconvictionof
manslaughterinthesecircumstances.SeeCawthorne[1996]2CrAppR(S)445
3S3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 17: sexual oFFences
(1) Alerting the Jury to the Danger of Assumptions
Introduction
Trials of non-consensual sexual offences
1. Trialsofcomplaintsofnon-consensualsexualoffencessuchasrapemay,andoftendo,presentthejury
withconfictingversionsofeventswhichtookplaceinprivatebetweentwopeople.Theremayormay
notbeevidenceofacomplaintmadeshortlyaftertheeventandevidencethatthecomplainantwas
distressed.Ifthedefendantscaseisconsent,orareasonablebeliefinconsent,itwillbesuggestedthat
theexplanationforthedistressisthecomplainantschangeofmind,perhapsinducedbyasenseof
shameaftertheevent.Intheabsenceofevidenceofrelevantinjurytothecomplainant,orprotestsheard
byothers,thejuryisfacedwiththediffculttaskofresolvingthequestionswhethertheyaresurethat(i)
thecomplainantdidnotinfactconsentand(ii)thedefendanthadnoreasonablegroundsforbelieving
thatshedid.Theyhaveonlytheevidenceofthetwoparticipantsuponwhichtomaketheirdecision.
2. Thecomplainantandthedefendantmaybeknowntooneanotherinasocialsetting.Theremaybe
evidenceofconsensualactsoffamiliarity,perhapssexualfamiliarity,betweenthecomplainantand
thedefendant,onwhichthedefendantreliesasthefoundationforhisclaimthatthecomplainantwas
consentingorthathereasonablybelievedthecomplainantwasconsentingtothesexualactsalleged.
3. Incircumstancessuchastheseitis,perhaps,notsurprisingthatjurorshaverecoursetopersonalstandards
ofbehaviouranddemeanour,ortoperceivedstandardsofbehaviouranddemeanour,byvictimsof
sexualoffenceswhenattemptingtoresolvetheconfictintheevidence.
4. Theexperienceofjudgeswhotrysexualoffencesisthatanimageofstereotypicalbehaviourand
demeanourbyavictimortheperpetratorofanon-consensualoffencesuchasrapeheldbysome
membersofthepubliccanbemisleadingandcapableofleadingtoinjustice.Thatexperiencehas
beengainedbyjudges,expertinthefeld,presidingovermanysuchtrialsduringwhichguilthasbeen
establishedbutinwhichthebehaviouranddemeanourofcomplainantsanddefendants,bothduring
theincidentgivingrisetothechargeandinevidence,hasbeenwidelyvariable.Judgeshave,asaresult
oftheirexperience,inrecentyearsadoptedthecourseofcautioningjuriesagainstapplyingstereotypical
imageshowanallegedvictimoranallegedperpetratorofasexualoffenceoughttohavebehavedatthe
time,oroughttoappearwhilegivingevidence,andtojudgetheevidenceonitsintrinsicmerits.Thisis
nottoinvitejuriestosuspendtheirownjudgementbuttoapproachtheevidencewithoutprejudice.
Recognition of the Limits of Judicial Comment
5. InMM
643
,D
644
andBreeze
645
theCourtofAppealhasrecentlybeenconfrontedbycomplaintsfrom
theappellantthatthetrialjudgewenttoofarinmakingsuchcommentupondefencecriticismsofthe
complainantsbehaviouranddemeanour.
1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 17: sexual offenCes
Footnotes
643
[2007]EWCACrim1558
644
[2008]EWCACrim2557
645
[2009]EWCACrim255
3S4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
6. InMMthecriticismwasofadelayofsomeyearsbythedefendantsstep-children,thenagedbetween
8and13,beforemakingcomplaintsofrapeandindecentassault.Thedefencewasfabrication.Thetrial
judgegaveanappropriatewarningtothejuryaboutthediffcultiesfacedbythedefendantinresponding
toastalecomplaint.Hethencontinued:
Youareentitledtoconsiderwhythesemattersdidnotcometolightsooner.Thedefencesayitisbecause
theyarenottrue.Theallegationsarefabricated.Hadtheybeentrue,theysay,youwouldhaveexpected
acomplainttobemadeearlierandcertainlywhenthedefendantwasoutoftheway.Theprosecution
sayitthatitisnotassimpleasthat.Whenchildrenareabused.,theyareoftenconfusedaboutwhatis
happeningtothemandwhyitishappening.Theyarechildren.Thatissomethingwhichyoushouldhave
intheforefrontofyourmindswhenconsideringthis.Theymighthavesomeinklingthatwhatisgoing
oniswrong.Sometimeschildrenevenblamethemselveswhenthereisobviouslynoneedforthemto
doso.Achildcanbeinhibitedforavarietyofreasonsfromspeakingout.Theymightbefearfulthatthey
maynotbebelieved,achildswordagainstamatureadult,ortheymightbescaredoftheconsequences,
orfearfuloftheeffectuponrelationshipswhichtheyhavecometoknow.Thediffculties,youmaythink,
arecompoundedinthefamilysituationwheretheyinvolveafamilymemberforwhomthefeelingsof
thechildmaybeambivalent.Thechildmaynotliketheabusebuttheremaybeaspectsoftheabuser
thatcausesthechildtoviewthemwithsomedegreeofaffection.Thefalloutfromdisclosurescanbe
unpredictable and sometimes calamitous. So, if a child or children are abused, they are often subject
toverymixedemotions,andthatcanbethecaseparticularlywherethereisanimposingadultinthe
householdofwhomtheyareperhapsafraidandwhohasoverbornethemandhaspoweroverthemand
warnedthemiftheytell.
Whetheranyofthatapplieshereisamatterforyou.Equally,therearesometimesinlives,sometimes
earlier,sometimeslater,whenthereisatrigger,ortheneedarises,todisclose,speakout.Noeasythingto
do,youmaythink,andittakessomecouragetodoso.

Ladiesandgentlemen,ImakecleartoyouthatIofferthesematterstoyounotbywayofdirectionin
lawbutasthingswhichincommonsenseandwithknowledgeoftheworldyoumightliketoconsider
inassessingwhetheryoufndthatthereisareasonforthedelayhere,andofcourseitalsoaffectsthe
honestyandthetruthfulnessofthetwogirls.
Youhaveheardexplanationsanditisentirelyamatterforyoubutyoumaythinkthatsomeofthethings
theysaidonthevideoandtoyou,KHetoldmeIwouldgettheblame.Itsoursecret,R,Ididntknow
whethertheywouldbelievemeorhim,bothofthemscaredtoanextent.Iwasworriedaboutwhat
wouldhappen.Iwasworriedabouthisreaction,whatpeoplemightsay.Itisamatterforyoubutyou
maythinksomeofthosereactions,iftheyaretrue,mirrorsomeofthemattersIhavejustbeenspeaking
about.
Whilenotgivinganemphaticendorsement,theCourtofAppealdecidedthattheseremarksdidnotexceed
theboundsofpermissiblecomment.
7. InDthedefendantandthecomplainanthadco-habitedforaperiodofyears,buttherelationship
deteriorated,duringwhichtimethedefendantbecameincreasinglyaggressive.Hewaschargedwith
fouroffencesofrapetakingplaceoveraperiodofweeks.Thecircumstancesofthelastincidentwere
particularlyunpleasant.Thedefencewasconsent.Thecomplainanthadanopportunitytocomplainon
thedayofthelastincidentwhenthepolicewerecalledtothehouse,butshedidnottakeit.Thedefence
mademuchofherfailuretocomplainincrossexamination.Thecomplainantexplainedthatshehadfelt
unabletospeakopenlybecausetherewereseveraloffcerspresent,theatmospherewasnotright,and
shefeltashamed.Onlytwodayslater,whenshewasspeakingtoasinglepoliceoffcer,didshefeelableto
giveexpressiontohercomplaint.
3SS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
8. Thedefendantappealedonthegroundthatthejudgehadexceededlegitimatecommentindescribing
howthecomplainant,havingbeenthevictimofaferociousrape,mayhavefeltwhenconfrontedby
severalpoliceoffcersinwhomshecouldnotconfde.TherespondentwasrepresentedbytheSolicitor
General,whosoughttosupportthejudgesapproachbyreferencetomaterialmadeavailabletojudges
bytheJudicialStudiesBoard,inparticulartheresearchandexpertiseofDrFionaMason.Partiesarenot
permittedtointroducegenericexpertevidenceoftherangeofknownreactionstonon-consensual
sexualoffences.TheCourtofAppealdecidedthatthetrialjudgewasentitledtocommentuponthe
wayinwhichtheevidenceshouldbeapproachedwheretherewasadangerthatthejurymightreach
anunjustifedconclusionwithoutit.Thesituationwasanalogoustothoseinwhichthetrialjudgewarns
thejuryagainstapparentlypersuasive,butpossiblymistaken,evidenceofidentifcation(Turnbull),or
againstjumpingtoaconclusionofguiltfromadefendantslie(Lucas).Thedifferencewasonlythatonthe
presentoccasionthecommentwasmadeinfairnesstothecomplainantratherthanintheinterestsofthe
defendant.Inbothinstances,however,itissuggestedthattheadviceisgivenintheinterestsofsecuring
theoverridingobjectiveofdealingwithcasesjustly.
9. Thejudgehadbeenentitledtocommentbutonlytotheextentthathiscommentwasuncontroversial.
LathamLJsaid:
Thejudgeisentitledtomakecommentsastothewayevidenceistobeapproachedparticularlyinareas
wherethereisadangerofajurycomingtoanunjustifedconclusionwithoutanappropriatewarning.
.Wethinkthatcaseswherethedefendantraisestheissueofdelayasunderminingthecredibilityofa
complainantfallintoasimilarcategorysaveclearlythattheneedforcommentisinthisinstancetoensure
fairnesstothecomplainant.Butanycommentmustbeuncontroversial.Itisnopartofthejudgestask
toputbeforethejuryDr.Masonslearningwithoutherhavingbeencalledasawitness.However,the
factthetraumaofrapecancausefeelingsofshameandguiltwhichmightinhibitawomanfrommaking
a complaint about rape is suffciently well-known to justify a comment to that effect. The suggested
direction...providesanexampleinverygeneraltermsofanappropriateformofdirectionswhichshould
betailoredtothefactsofthecase.Inthepresentcase,thejudgewasentitledtoaddtothatgeneral
comment,theparticularfeelingsofshameandembarrassmentwhichmayarisewhentheallegationisof
sexualassaultbyapartner.Hewasalsoentitledtoremindthejuryofthewayinwhichthecomplaintin
factemerged,asexplainedbythecomplainantherself.
TheCourtdidnot,however,approveofthetermsinwhichthejudgeswarninghadbeenexpressed;
inparticular,itwasnotappropriatetoemphasisehowawomanmightfeelifshewasthevictimofrape
withinarelationship.Thecommentsmadeshouldformpartofabalancedexpositionofthecasesfor
boththeprosecutionandthedefence.Nevertheless,theverdictsweresafe.
10. ThesuggesteddirectionreferredtobyLathamLJinthepassagequotedatparagraph5abovewasas
follows:
Experienceshowsthatpeoplereactdifferentlytothetraumaofaserioussexualassault.Thereisnoone
classicresponse.Thedefencesaythereasonthatthecomplainantdidnotreportthisuntilherboyfriend
returnedfromDubaitendaysaftertheincidentisbecauseshehasmadeupafalsestory.Thatisamatter
foryou.Youmaythinkthatsomepeoplemaycomplainimmediatelytothefrstpersontheysee,whilst
othersmayfeelshameandshockandnotcomplainforsometime.Alatecomplaintdoesnotnecessarily
meanitisafalsecomplaint.Thatisamatterforyou.
3So
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
11. InBreezethedefendantwaschargedwithsexualabuseofhisstep-daughterwhenshewasaged8-14.
Theabuseallegedlystoppedatthatagebecausethecomplainantwasabletostanduptothedefendant,
butnocomplaintwasmadeuntilafterhermarriage11yearslater.TheCourtofAppealallowedanappeal
againstconvictionbecausethetrialjudgerepeatedonseveraloccasionsthattherewasnoobvious
motivationforthecomplainanttotelllies.TheCourtofAppealcouldnotexcludethepossibilitythatthe
jurymayhavebeeninfuencedbytherefrain.
Mistaken assumptions
12. Researchbythosewhoareexpertinthesubject
646
disclosesseveralsubjectsforstereotypingwhichcould
leadthejurytoapproachthecomplainantsevidencewithunwarrantedscepticism.Theyincludebutare
notlimitedto:
Thecomplainantworeprovocativeclothing;thereforehe/shemusthavewantedsex
Thecomplainantgotdrunkinmalecompany;thereforehe/shemusthavebeenpreparedforsex
Anattractivemaledoesnotneedtohavesexwithoutconsent
Acomplainantinarelationshipwiththeallegedattackerislikelytohaveconsented
Rapetakesplacebetweenstrangers
Rapedoesnottakeplacewithoutphysicalresistancefromthevictim
Ifitisrapetheremustbeinjuries
Apersonwhohasbeensexuallyassaultedreportsitassoonaspossible
Apersonwhohasbeensexuallyassaultedrememberseventsconsistently
13. Judgeswhotrysexualoffencesareawarethateachoneofthesestereotypesdoesnotaccordwith
experience.Thepurposeofcomment,approvedbytheCourtofAppealinD,ismerelytocautionthe
juryagainstmakingunwarrantedassumptionsaboutthebehaviourordemeanourofthecomplainantif
thejudgeconsidersthecircumstancesrequireit.Itisessentialthatadvicefromthetrialjudgedoesnot
implantinthejurysmindsanycontraryassumption.Itisnottheresponsibilityofthejudgetoappearto
supportanyparticularconclusionbuttowarnthejuryagainsttheunfairnessofapproachingtheevidence
withanypre-formedassumptions.
14. Assistancesuchasthatproposedshouldnot,wepropose,begivenwithoutdiscussionbetweenthe
judgeandtheadvocatesbeforespeeches.Thejudgeshouldtaketheopportunitytoformulatehiswords
carefullyhavingreceivedtheviewsoftheparties,theobjectbeingtoensurehedoesnotstrayfrom
thecommonplacetothecontroversialand,thus,appeartobeendorsingargumentforonesideatthe
expenseoftheother.
Footnotes
646
E.g.DrFionaMasonspaperThePsychologicalEffectsofSeriousSexualAssault:AGuideandPowerpointSeminarNovember
2008,JSBtrainingwebsite;HomeOffceResearchStudy237RapeandsexualassaultofwomenMarch2002http://www.
homeoffce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors237.pdf;TemkinandKraheSexualAssaultandtheJusticeGap:AQuestionofAttitudewww.
hartpub.co.uk;ReactingtoRape:ExploringMockJurorsAssessmentsofComplainantCredibilityEllisonandMunroBrJ
Criminol.2009;49:202-219http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/azn077?iijkey=FFeruz5D5tBKVOz&keytype=ref.Some
jurisdictionshavealreadylegislatedforjurydirectionsbasedonsuchresearch.
3S7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Directions
Judicialadviceshouldbecraftedandexpressedinafairandbalancedway.Thetrialjudgeshouldnotbe,orbe
seentobe,endorsingtheargumentsdeployedbytheprosecutionbutensuringthatthejuryisapproaching
theevidencewithoutbeinghamperedbyanyunwarrantedassumptions.
ThefollowingIllustrations,whichhavebeendevelopedandadaptedfromworkdonebyHHJudgePeter
RookQCandothersparticipatingintheJSBsSeriousSexualOffencesSeminars(includingthesuggested
directionatparagraph10above),canbeadaptedorexpandedtodealwiththeevidenceinthecase.Theyare
unlikelytooffendanyoftheprinciplesidentifedbytheCourtofAppeal.TheirappearanceintheBenchbook
shouldnot,however,beregardedasasuggestionthatanyoneofthemshouldbeusedinanyparticularcase.
Whethertogiveanyadviceatallonthesubjectofassumptionsand,ifso,inwhattermstoexpressit,are
entirelyforthejudgementofthetrialjudge.
Illustration avoiding judgements based on stereotypes
Itwouldbeunderstandableifoneormoreofyoucametothistrialwithassumptionsastowhatconstitutes
rape,whatkindofpersonmaybethevictimofrape,whatkindofpersonmaybearapist,orwhataperson
who is being, or has been, raped will do or say. It is important that you should leave behind any such
assumptionsaboutthenatureoftheoffencebecauseexperiencetellsthecourtsthatthereisnostereotype
forarape,orarapist,oravictimofrape.Theoffencecantakeplaceinalmostanycircumstancesbetween
allkindsofdifferentpeoplewhoreactinavarietyofways.Pleaseapproachthecasedispassionately,putting
asideanyviewastowhatyoumightormightnothaveexpectedtohear,andmakeyourjudgementstrictly
ontheevidenceyouhaveheardfromthewitnesses.
Illustration avoiding assumptions when the complainant and defendant are known to one another
Awoman(aman)whohasbeensubjectedtoasexualassaultobviouslyundergoesatraumaticexperience,
whetherornotthevictimandher(his)attackerareknowntooneanother,andwhetherornottheyhave
previouslyenjoyedaconsensualsexualrelationship.Atfrstthought,youmightassumethatstrangerrape
wouldbefarmoretraumatic,violentandfrightening.Itcanbe,butexperiencetellsthecourtsthatthisisnot
necessarilythecase.Theexperienceofavictimofrapebysomeoneshe(he)knowsortrustsmaybejustas
traumaticwhetherornotphysicalviolenceorthethreatofphysicalviolencewasinvolved.
Illustration effect of trauma on demeanour in evidence
You must decide whether you are sure the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse with the
defendant.Thatwillrequireanassessmentbyyouofthecomplainantsevidence.Imustemphasisethat
theassessmentisforyoutomake.However,itisimportantthatyoudonotbringtothatassessmentany
preconceivedviewsastohowawitnessinatrialsuchasthisshouldreacttotheexperience.Anypersonwho
hasbeenrapedwillhaveundergonetraumawhetherthedefendantwasknowntoher(orhim)ornot.Itis
impossibletopredicthowthatindividualwillreact,eitherinthedaysfollowing,orwhenspeakingpublicly
aboutitincourt.Theexperienceofthecourtsisthatthosewhohavebeenvictimsofrapereactdifferently
tothetaskofspeakingaboutitinevidence.Somewilldisplayobvioussignsofdistress,otherswillnot.The
reasonforthisisthateverypersonhashisorherownwayofcoping.Conversely,itdoesnotfollowthatsigns
ofdistressbythewitnessconfrmsthetruthandaccuracyoftheevidencegiven.Inotherwords,demeanour
incourtisnotnecessarilyacluetothetruthofthewitnessaccount.Italldependsonthecharacterand
personalityoftheindividualconcerned.
3S8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration effect of trauma on demeanour in evidence
You must decide whether you are sure the complainant did not consent to sexual intercourse with the
defendant.Thatwillrequireanassessmentbyyouofthecomplainantsevidence.Imustemphasisethat
theassessmentisforyoutomake.However,itisimportantthatyoudonotbringtothatassessmentany
preconceivedviewsastohowawitnessinatrialsuchasthisshouldreacttotheexperience.Anypersonwho
hasbeenrapedwillhaveundergonetraumawhetherthedefendantwasknowntoher(orhim)ornot.Itis
impossibletopredicthowthatindividualwillreact,eitherinthedaysfollowing,orwhenspeakingpublicly
aboutitincourt.Theexperienceofthecourtsisthatthosewhohavebeenvictimsofrapereactdifferently
tothetaskofspeakingaboutitinevidence.Somewilldisplayobvioussignsofdistress,otherswillnot.The
reasonforthisisthateverypersonhashisorherownwayofcoping.Conversely,itdoesnotfollowthatsigns
ofdistressbythewitnessconfrmsthetruthandaccuracyoftheevidencegiven.Inotherwords,demeanour
incourtisnotnecessarilyacluetothetruthofthewitnessaccount.Italldependsonthecharacterand
personalityoftheindividualconcerned.
Letmenowremindyouoftheevidence.....
Illustration late reporting
Ithasbeensaidonbehalfofthedefendantthatthefactthecomplainantdidnotreportwhathadhappened
toher(him)assoonaspossiblemakesitlesslikelythatthecomplaintshe(he)eventuallymadewastrue.
Whetherthatissointhisparticularcaseisamatterforyoutoconsiderandresolve.However,itwouldbe
wrongtoassumethateverypersonwhohasbeenthevictimofasexualassaultwillreportitassoonas
possible.Theexperienceofthecourtsisthatvictimsofsexualoffencescanreacttothetraumaindifferent
ways.Some,indistressoranger,maycomplaintothefrstpersontheysee.Others,whoreactwithshame
orfearorshockorconfusion,donotcomplainorgotoauthorityforsometime.Ittakesawhileforself-
confdencetoreassertitself.Thereis,inotherwords,noclassicortypicalresponse.Alatecomplaintdoes
notnecessarilysignifyafalsecomplaint,anymorethananimmediatecomplaintnecessarilydemonstrates
atruecomplaint.Itismatterforyoutodeterminewhether,inthecaseofthisparticularcomplainant,the
latenessofthecomplaint,suchasitis,assistsyouatalland,ifso,whatweightyouattachtoit.Youneed
toconsiderwhatthecomplainantherselfsaidaboutherexperienceandherreactiontoit.Onthisissuethe
evidenceshegavewas......
Illustration absence of force or the threat of force
Theoffencechargedrequiresproofthatthecomplainantdidnotconsentandthatthedefendantdidnot
reasonablybelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting.Theoffencemayormaynotbeaccompaniedby
forceorthethreatofforce,butpleasenotethatitisnopartoftheprosecutionsobligationtoprovethatthe
defendantusedforceorthethreatofforce.
Consenthasaparticularlegalmeaning.Apersonconsentsonlyifshe(he)agreesbychoice,andshe(he),
attherelevanttime,hasthefreedomandcapacitytomakethatchoice.Toprovethatthecomplainantdid
notconsenttheprosecutionmustmakeyousureonalltheevidencethatthecomplainantdidnotgiveher
agreementbyanexerciseoffreechoice.
3S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
The submission of free choice to repeated demands is not to be confused with consent. For example,
submissionachievedbypersistentpsychologicalcoercionsothatfreechoicewasoverbornewillnotamount
toconsentfreelygiven.Ontheotherhand,reluctantbutfreeagreementisnotthesamethingassubmission,
andisstillconsent,evenifreluctantlygiven.Itisforyoutodecidewhether,inthecontextofthisparticular
relationship(orencounter),consentwasfreelygivenbythecomplainant.Ifyouaresureitwasnot,you
must,secondly,decidewhetheryouaresurethedefendanthadnoreasonablebeliefthatithad.
Illustration some consensual activity no overt force - lack of resistance
Duringthecourseofherevidenceitwassuggestedtothecomplainantthatshecouldhavekicked,struggled,
shouted or otherwise objected to what the defendant was doing. In his closing argument counsel has
submitted to you that the complainants failure to protest demonstrates that the complainant was not
tellingthetruthwhenshetoldyouthat,farfromconsenting,shewaspetrifedwithfear,andfroze.Thisis
anargumentwhichyoushouldconsiderwithcare.Whenyoudo,youshouldnotassumethatthereisany
classicortypicalresponsetoanunwelcomedemandforsexualintercourse.Theexperienceofthecourtsis
thatpeoplewhoarebeingsubjectedtonon-consensualsexualactivitymayrespondinavarietyofdifferent
ways.
Theoffencechargedrequiresproofthatthecomplainantdidnotconsentandthatthedefendantdidnot
reasonablybelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting.Itmayormaynotbeaccompaniedbyforceorthe
threatofforce,butpleasenotethatitisnopartoftheprosecutionsobligationtoprovethatthedefendant
usedforceorthethreatofforceinordertoachievesexualintercourse.
Consenthasaparticularlegalmeaning.Apersonconsentsonlyifshe(he)agreesbychoice,andshe(he),
attherelevanttime,hasthefreedomandcapacitytomakethatchoice.Toprovethatthecomplainantdid
not consent, the prosecution must make you sure on all the evidence that the complainant did not give
herconsentbyanexerciseoffreechoice.Submissionofherfreechoicetoademandexpressedphysically
orinwordsisnotthesameasconsent.Ontheotherhand,anexerciseoffreechoicecanleadtoreluctant
agreementandthatisnotthesameassubmission.Youwillneedtoconsidertheevidencewithcarebefore
youdecidewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedthatthecomplainantdidnotconsenttosexualintercourse
withthedefendant.
Secondly, the prosecution does not have to prove that the complainant communicated her (his) lack of
consentbyresistingthedefendantphysicallyorbyshoutingathim.Itisnottheexperienceofthecourtsthat
victimsofrapealwayshaveinjuriestoshowforit.Thereisnoclassicreactiontoademandforunwanted
sexualactivity.Somepeoplewithphysicalself-confdencewillprotestloudandlong,somewillfght,and
otherswillfreezeastherealisationdawnsthattheyareinasituationwhichtheycannotcontrol.Freezingis
notthesamethingasconsentfreelygiven.
Thirdly,thefactthatthecomplainantconsentedtoacertainamountofsexualactivitydoesnotmeanthat
shewasboundtoconsenttoallthatthedefendantwanted,nordoesitmeanthatbyconsentingtosome
activityshewasnecessarilyindicatingherconsenttoeverything.Thecomplainantwasentitledtoexercisea
freechoicehowfarshewouldgoandhowfarshewouldnot.
3o0
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thecomplainantsevidenceisthat,assoonasthedefendantmadeitclearhewasgoingtohavesexual
intercoursewithher(him),she(he)wentrigidandtoldhim,No,Idontwantto.Heignoredwhatshe(he)
saidandproceedednonetheless.Thedefendantsaidthatbecauseshe(he)didnotresisthimhethoughtthe
complainantmeantyes,soheproceeded.
Youneedtofocus,uponthetimethedefendantpenetratedthecomplainant,frst,onthecomplainants
stateofmindand,second,dependinguponyourdecision,uponthedefendantsstateofmind.
First,considerthecomplainant.Whatwerethecircumstancesinwhichsexualintercourseoccurred?Dida
pointcomebeyondwhichthecomplainantwasnotpreparedtogo?Wasthecomplainantfreelyconsenting
tosexualintercourse,ordidshe(he)freeze,andwasshe(he),infear,submittingtoademandshe(he)felt
unabletoresist?Ifyouconcludethatthecomplainantmayhavegivenher(his)freeconsentthenyoumust
fndthedefendantnotguilty.
If,onotherhand,youaresurethecomplainantwasnotfreelyconsenting,younexthavetoconsiderthe
defendantsstateofmind.Didthedefendantbelievethatthecomplainantwasfreelyconsenting?Pleasenote
thatbeliefinconsentisnotthesamethingasahopeorexpectationthatthecomplainantwasconsenting;
norisindifferencewhetherthecomplainantwasconsentingornot.Ifyouaresurethedefendantdidnot
believethecomplainantwasconsentingthedefendantisguiltyofrape.Ifyouconcludethatthedefendant
may have believed the complainant was consenting you will have reached the fnal question which is:
Didthedefendanthaveanyreasonablebasisforthinkingthatthecomplainantwasfreelyconsenting.In
makingthisjudgementyoushouldtakeintoaccountanystepsthedefendanttooktoascertainwhetherthe
complainantwasconsenting.ThedefendanttoldyouthatalthoughthecomplainantsaidNohebelieved
thatbecauseshedidnotresisthim,shemusthavebeenconsenting.Ifyouaresurethedefendantdidnot
reasonablybelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting,heisguiltyofrape.Ifyouconcludethathisbelief
mayhavebeenreasonableinthecircumstancesthenyourverdictmustbenotguilty.
Illustration provocative dress hard drinking firtation previous sexual relationship
Thecomplainantwasinahenpartywhichwenttothenightclubat11pm.Therewere12youngwomen
intheparty,allscantilydressed.Theyweredrinkinginroundsandmanyweredrunk,asthecomplainant
saysshewas.Theydancedwitheachotherandtheydancedwithmen.Thecomplainanttoldyouthatshe
dancedwithmensheknewanddidnotknow.Sheacceptedthatshewasfirtatiouswithmorethanoneof
them.Shedancedwiththedefendantwithwhomshehadhadsexualintercourseontwopreviousoccasions
about12monthsbefore,duringarelationshipwhichhadlasted3weeks.Shekissedhimandagreedthat
shewentwillinglywithhimoutsidetheclubforacigarette.
Inthecourseofcrossexamination,itwassuggestedtothecomplainantthatshewasperfectlypreparedfor
sexthatnight;thatshewasbroadcastingherwillingnessbythewayshedressedandthewayshebehaved;
thatshewouldnothavekissedthedefendantifshehadnotfanciedhim;thatsheexpectedwhentheywent
outsidethattherewouldbesexualcontactbetweenthem.
3o1
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
Iwillsummarisetheevidenceforyouinamoment,includingthecomplainantsanswerstothosesuggestions,
but,frst,Ineedtoaddresstheassumptionswhichappeartometounderpincounselsquestions.Eachof
usknows,anditiscertainlytheexperienceofthecourts,thatpeopleyoungandnotsoyoungcanbehaved
inasociallydisinhibitedmanner.Scantilydressedyoungwomencelebratinginhenpartiesisbynomeans
unusual,norisheavydrinkingbyyoungwomenduringanightout,norisfirtatiousbehaviourinnightclubs.
Weallknowthatalcoholandatmospherecanleadtodisinhibitedbehaviourincludingsexualbehaviour.
However,thereappearedtobeanassumptionbehindcounselsquestionsthatanyoneofthisgroupofyoung
women,justbecausetheywerebehavinginanuninhibitedmannerduringtheirnightout,wouldhavebeen
preparedtoengageinsexualactivitywithanymanwhohappenedtotakeafancytoher,especiallyifthat
manwasknowntoherandtherehadbeenapreviousrelationshipbetweenthem.Istherealisticposition
this:awomanmayormaynotbepreparedtoengageinsexualactivitywithaparticularman,depending
uponthecircumstancesoftheencounterandthemutualfeelingsbetweenthem?Whatyoushouldnotdois
judgetheintentionsorinclinationsofthecomplainantonthisoccasionbytheapplicationofageneralised
assumptionaboutpeoplesbehaviour.Whatyoushoulddoisreachconclusionsbasedupontheevidence.
Illustration the defendants assertion of other (and better) opportunities for consensual sexual
activity
In answer to questions from his own counsel the defendant told you that he did not need to stoop to
rapebecausehewashappilyinvolvedinacurrentsexualrelationshipwithawomanwhosephotograph
he produced. The purpose of these questions, counsel told you, was to demonstrate that the defendant
had nothing to gain and everything to lose from engaging in a non-consensual act of intercourse with
the complainant. You must, of course, apply your careful judgement to the argument addressed to you.
Whenyoudo,youshouldnotassumethatrapeonlyhappenstowomenwhoaresexuallyattractivetotheir
attackers.Experiencetellsthecourtsthatphysicalattractiondoesnotnecessarilyprovideaprofleeitherof
arapistorofhisvictim.Bearinmindthatarapemayhavelesstodowithsexualattractionthanwiththe
excitementofdominationandcontrolovertheotherperson.Circumstancesvaryandyourultimatetaskisto
decidewhathappenedbetweenthesetwopeople.
Illustration inconsistent complaints
One criticism of the complainant which you will need to consider with care is that she (he) has given
inconsistentaccountsofher(his)experience.She(he)complainedtoher(his)fatmateonher(his)return
home;she(he)complainedtothepolicethefollowingday;andshe(he)madeawitnessstatementfollowing
hermedicalexamination.Finally,thecomplainantgaveevidenceinavideorecordedinterviewandviathe
televisionlinktoyou.Iwillremindyouinamomentofthemoresignifcantofthoseinconsistencies,which
thecomplainantacceptedinevidenceandsoughttoexplain.BeforeIdo,Ineedtogiveyousomeassistance
withyourapproachtothecomplainantsevidence.
Theexperienceofthecourtsisthatitisunwisetoapproachtheissueofinconsistencywithanassumption
thatatrueaccountisalwaysconsistent,orthataninconsistentaccountisalwaysuntrue.Itdependsonthe
circumstancesandtheindividual.
3o2
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Everypersonwhoisavictimofrapesufferstraumatoagreaterorlesserdegree.Thequalityofourmemory
isaffectedbytheabilityofthemindtotakeinthedetailsoftheexperience,registerthem,andtorecallthem
afterwards.Traumacaninterferewiththeseprocesses.Experiencetellsusthatthewayinwhichtrauma
affectsmemoryvariesconsiderably.Itmayaffectapersonsabilityaccuratelytolaydowninthememory,in
thecorrectsequence,eachoftheconstituentpartsoftheordeal.Ifthetraumadidhavesuchaneffect,the
abilityofthewitnesstorecalleventsconsistentlyisalsolikelytobeaffected.Iamsureyouwillappreciatethat
someonewhoisinvolvedinashockingincidentmaybeaffectedinthisway.Aftertheevent,somepeople
ruminateconstantlyonwhathappenedandbythatprocessreconstruct,accuratelyorperhapsinaccurately,
theeventswhichoccurred;othershatetoconfronttheirmemoriesanddotheirbesttoavoidthinkingabout
them.Theresultisthatrecallisnotalwaysconsistent.
647
Ifyouacceptthattraumacanaffectpeople,andifthecomplainantdidindeedsuffertrauma,youmight
considerherfailureofconsistentrecalltobeunderstandable.
Ontheotherhand,apersonwhohasmadeafalsecomplaintmayalsohavediffcultybeingconsistent.The
inconsistenciesmayexposethepossibilitythatthedetailsdonotrepresentatruerecallofeventsbutarepart
ofamanufacturedaccountwhichisdiffculttorememberconsistently.Inconsistentaccountsmay,therefore,
beanindicatorthattheaccountasawholeisuntrue.
How then should you approach the evidence of the complainant? Each of these inconsistencies needs to
beexaminedwithaviewtomakingadecisionwhetherithassignifcanceinrelationtothetruthfulnessof
thecomplainantsaccountasawhole.Iwillremindyouoftheevidencewiththattaskinmind.If,having
givendueconsiderationtothedefenceargument,youaresurethattheessentialpartsofthecomplainants
accountaretrue,youwillnodoubtactonthatconclusion.But,ifyouareleftindoubtaboutthetruthfulness
ofthecomplainantsaccount,becausetheinconsistenciescannotbesatisfactorilyexplained,youmustfnd
thedefendantnotguilty.
Sources
Archbold:20-27a
Footnotes
647
Foranunderstandingofprofessionalresearchintotheworkingofmemoryandrecallsee,forexample,TheBritishPsychological
SocietyGuidelinesonMemoryandtheLawJune2008;WitnessTestimonyHeaton-Armstrong,Shepherd,Gudjonssonand
Wolchover,OxfordUP2006;AnalysingWitnessTestimonyHeaton-Armstrong,ShepherdandWolchover,BlackstonePress1999
3o3
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Allegations of Historical Sexual Abuse
Introduction
Delayinthetrialofoffencesofhistoricalsexualabuseisrelevantinthreeways:frst,itwillraiseintheminds
ofthejurythequestionwhythecomplainantwaitedsolongbeforemakingacomplaint;second,itwillaffect
thequalityoftheevidencerelevanttothemattersinissue;third,thedefendantmaybeatadisadvantage
inmeetingthefactualassertionsmadeagainsthim.Thesecondandthirdfeaturesofdelayareconsidered
atRvSmolinski.Thissectionisconcernedwithdirectionstothejuryupontheissuewhyitmightbethe
complainantdelayedbeforemakingacomplaintandthepossibleeffectsofthatdelayuponthecredibilityof
thecomplainantsevidence.
Directions
Directionstothejuryconcerningtheevidenceofthecomplainantwillneedtodealwiththecircumstances
inwhichthecomplainantfeltunabletorevealthesubjectmatterofthecomplaintduringtheperiod
concerned.Thecomplainantwillusuallybedescribingeventswhichtookplaceduringchildhood,andthe
jurywillneedtoassessthereasonablenessofthefailureofachildtomakeacomplaintwithinthecontextof
thephysicalandemotionalenvironmentinwhichthechildwaslivingatthetime.Oncethecomplainantleft
thatenvironmentorreachedadulthoodorboth,otherreasonsmaybeadvancedastowhythecomplainant
remainedsilent,usuallyincludingawishnottodisturbpainfulmemories.Thetriggerforthedecisionatlast
tomakeacomplaintmaybeanadultrelationshipinwhichpastexperiencesareexchanged,oraconcernthat
thebehaviouraboutwhichcomplaintisnowmadewillbevisitedbythedefendantuponthenextgeneration
ofchildreninthefamily.
InMM
648
theCourtofAppealapprovedthedirectionextractedat(1)CautionAgainstMakingBehavioural
Assumptions,paragraph6inacaseinwhichtherewasasubstantialdelaybetweenchildhoodandthe
complaints.
Whenprovidingthejurywithsuchassistanceitshouldbeeven-handed.Whatthejudgecandoistoassist
thejurywiththecommonexperienceofthecourtindealingroutinelywithsuchcasesandtopointoutthose
featuresoftheevidencewhichwillassistthemfairlytoassessthecomplainantsexplanations.
Illustration complaint frst made when complainant was an adult suggestion by the defence that
the complaint is not true consideration of reasons for complainants delay in making her complaint
as a child as an adult
Duringcrossexaminationofthecomplainantitwassuggestedtoherthatnothinguntowardhadhappened
toherasachild;thatifithad,shewouldhavecomplainedatleasttoanothermemberofthefamily;that
herchildhoodhadimposedonittheresponsibilityofhelpingtocareforherbrotherandsisters;andthather
motivationformakinghercurrentcomplaintisherjealousyofthedefendantsrelationshipwithhermother
andtheirjointrelationshipwiththeirnaturalchildren.Thosesuggestionshavebeenrepeatedintheclosing
argumentofcounselforthedefendant.
17: sexual offenCes
Footnotes
648
[2007]EWCACrim1558
3o4
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Iwill,inamoment,remindyouinmoredetailoftheevidence.First,Iwishtomakesomepreliminaryremarks
aboutthecomplainantsresponsetothesequestions.Youarenotboundtoacceptthem;whethertheyareof
assistanceisforyoutojudge.Pleaserememberthatalldecisionsconcerningthequalityandreliabilityofthe
evidenceareforyoutomake.
Thecomplainantisthenaturaldaughterofthedefendantswife,andsheisthedefendantsstep-daughter.
Whenthedefendantmarriedhermotherthecomplainantbecameamemberoftheirfamily.However,the
threenaturalchildrenofthedefendantandMrsAcamealonginsuccessionshortlyafterwards.Thefrst,B,
is9yearsyoungerthanthecomplainant.Thecomplainanttoldyouthatthesexualabusebegannotlong
beforeBwasborn.AfterBwasborn,mothersattentionwasfocusedonthebabies.Rightlyorwrongly,the
complainantsaidshefelttheleastimportantmemberofthehouseholdand,attimes,isolatedandlonely.
Shesaidshewastoldbythedefendantfromthestartthatsheshouldsaynothingtohermother.Ifshedid,
theywouldbothbeintrouble.Itsoursecret,hesaid.Thedefendantwouldbuyhersmallgiftsandspend
timewithher,butthecomplainantthoughthermotherwastoobusywiththeotherchildrentotakeher
worriestoher.Thecomplainantsaidshefeltguilty,butunabletodoanythingaboutit.Shetoldyouthat
thelastactofabusetookplacewhenshewas14.Sheagreesthatshehadbecomeahandful.Shelefthome
assoonasshecould,at16,andtriedtoputanunhappyperiodofherlifebehindher.Shemetherhusband
whenshewas22.Onlywhenherfrstchildwasborntwoyearslaterdidshebegintoworryagainaboutthe
treatmentshehadreceivedatthehandsofthedefendant.Shewantedherdaughtertohaveasatisfactory
relationshipwithherownmother,butcouldnotbearthethoughtthatherdaughtermightbeleftalone
withthedefendant.Shedecidedtorevealthepasttoherhusbandwho,shesaid,insistedthatshenotifythe
police.Thatishowthesematterscametolight.
Inordertojudgewhetherthesuggestionsputtothecomplainantinevidencehaveormayhaveanybasisin
truth,youwillthereforebeconsideringtwoimportantperiodsinthecomplainantslife,thefrst,whenshe
wasachild,and,thesecond,whenshewasanadult,marriedwomanwithachildofherown.
Itisimportantthat,whenyouareconsideringthequestionwhythesemattersdidnotcometolightwhen
thecomplainantwasstillachild,yourememberthecomplainantisprovidingherpresentexplanationfrom
anadultperspective.Shewasboundtobecauseshewaslookingbackaftermanyyearsandtryingtoexplain
howshefeltasachild.Achild,however,doesnothavethesameabilityasanadulttobringperspectiveand
judgementtobearonherrelationshipwithothers.Lifeviewedthroughtheeyesandmindofachildmay
appearverydifferent.Youneedtoconsiderhowthischild,aged9to14years,inthefamilyenvironmentin
whichshewasplaced,mighthavereactedtobehaviourfromthedefendantsuchasshehasnowdescribed.
It would depend, you may think, upon several factors: among them, the emotional chemistry between
membersofthefamily,thepersonalityoftheindividualsconcerned,thenatureoftherelationshipbetween
theadultsinthehouse,andthewordsspokenbetweentheadultsandthechild.Doesthecomplainants
descriptionofafeelingofisolationandlonelinesswithinthefamilyunitstrikeachordwithyou?Werethere
confictingemotionsandloyalties?Thecomplainanthastoldyouthat,ontheonehand,thedefendantgave
herwelcomeattention;ontheother,hewassexuallyabusivetowardsher.Arethesethesortofcircumstances
inwhichayounggirlmightexperiencefeelingsofguilt?Mightachildwhohadsuchfeelingsidentifywith
themanandbefearfulthatshetoohadsomethingtolosefromdiscovery?Thereisnodenyingthatthe
complainanthadtheopportunitytocomplaintohermother,herfriends,herteachers,andmembersofher
widerfamily.Thefactshedidnottakethoseopportunitiesisanimportantmatterforyoutoconsider.But,
whenyouareconsideringthesignifcanceofherfailuretocomplain,youshouldbecarefultoplaceitinthe
contextofhercircumstancesatthetime.
3oS
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thesecondperiodoftimewhichyouneedtoaddressisthatinwhichthecomplainantdecidedtomakeher
complainttothepolice.Bythenshewas,ofcourse,anadult.Herperspectiveonlifewouldundoubtedlyhave
beendifferent.Youareaskedtoconsiderwhetherayoungwomanwholefthomeat16mightmakefalse
allegationsofabuseagainstherstepfathereightyearslaterbecauseshefeltalienatedfromhermothers
newfamily,andbitterthatshewastreatedinadifferentmannerasachildthanwerehersiblings;because
shewastheeldestbysomeyearsandbecauseshewasthestepchild.Thecomplainantsaidthatalthoughit
washardworksometimesshewasnotresentfulaboutthat.Shetoldyouthatherreasonswereveryspecifc
andrelatedonlytothedangertowhichshethoughtherownchildwouldbeexposedifshewastoenjoy
aconventionalrelationshipwithhergrandmother.Shetoldyouthatshedidnotseewhysheshouldtake
exceptionalmeasurestoensurethatherdaughterwasneverleftalonewiththedefendantbecausethatwas
boundtoleadtoquestions,and,inanycase,itwasthedefendantsfaultshewasinthissituationatall.Itis
againimportantthatyoudonotconsiderthisevidenceintheabstract,butthatyouexaminecarefullythe
complainantsexplanationforthecourseshetook,whenshetookit.
Theultimatedecisionyouhavetomakeiswhetheryouaresurethecomplainanthasgiventruthfuland
reliableevidenceaboutthedefendantsconducttowardsher.Theperiodofdelaybeforethecomplaintwas
made and the motivation for the complaint being made when it was made are just two features of the
evidencewhichyouneedtoconsider.Howimportanttheyareandhowtheyshouldberesolvedareforyou
tojudge.
Illustration need to put emotions and assumptions aside
When judging allegations of sexual or physical abuse involving children experience has shown that it is
necessarytokeepacoolhead.Itiseasytofeelindignantattheideaofthissortofthinghappening,andeasy
tobesympathetictoawitnesswhoseemstobeshowingdiffcultyordistressathavingtorecallandrecount
an incident which was distressing and unpleasant for her (him). Those are perfectly proper and normal
emotionsbuttheydonotassistindecidingwhethertheseallegationsaresatisfactorilyproved.AsIsaidto
youattheoutsetofthiscaseyoumustjudgethiscaseontheevidenceyouhaveheard.Youmustputaside
anyfeelingyouhaveaboutcasessuchastheseandreviewtheevidenceyouhavehearddispassionately.
Takeintoaccount,ifyouwish,theemotionsanddemeanourofthewitnesses,butdonotallowyourown
emotionstotakeover.
Youmayhavereadorheardopinionsexpressedinthemediaaboutwhetherpeoplewhoallegetheyhave
beenabusedaschildrentellthetruthortelllies.Youmayhaveaviewformedinadvanceastohowyou
wouldexpectapersonmakinganallegationofchildabusetoappearorbehavewhengivingevidence.The
experienceofthecourtsisthatassumptionsofanykindarenotlikelytoassist.Youareconcernedonlywith
afairandcalmevaluationoftheevidenceinthiscase.Yourverdictmustturnonwhatyoumakeofthat
evidenceandonnothingelse.
Youhavetobesurethatthecomplainantistellingyouthetruthandthather(his)evidenceisaccurateand
reliable.Bydoingthatyouareapplyingexactlythesamestandardsasyouwouldinanyothercriminaltrial.
17: sexual offenCes
3oo
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) The Evidence of Child Witnesses
Introduction
Procedural matters
1. Section53(1)and(3),andsection54(2)YouthJusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999providethatall
personsofwhateveragearecompetenttogiveevidenceunless,onabalanceofprobability,itappears
tothecourtthatthewitnessisnotabletounderstandquestionsputandgiveanswerswhichcanbe
understood.
649
2. Section55ofthe1999Actpermitsawitnessaged14orabovetogiveswornevidenceifhehasa
suffcientappreciationofthesolemnityoftheoccasionandoftheparticularresponsibilitytotellthe
truthunderoath.Ifawitnessofthatageappearstobeabletogiveintelligibleanswersheispresumed
tohavesuffcientappreciationunlessthecontraryisshownbyevidence.Ifcontraryevidenceisgiventhe
onusisuponthepartyseekingtohavethewitnesssworntoestablish,onabalanceofprobabilities,the
qualifcationtobesworn.
3. Bysection56ofthe1999Actanycompetentwitnesswhoisnotpermittedtobeswornmaygive
unswornevidence.
4. Corroborationoftheevidenceofchildrenisnolongerrequired.Theformerrequirementwasabolished
bysection34(2)CriminalJusticeAct1988.Theremay,however,beaneedtoadvisethejuryoftheneed
forcautionbeforeacceptingtheevidenceofayoungchildwherethenatureorqualityoftheevidence
appearstorequireit.Suchwarningsarenolongerroutinelygiven.
5. FordiscussionofissuesofcompetenceandintelligibilityoftheevidenceofchildwitnessesseeTestingthe
CredibilityofChildrensEvidence,LauraHoyano,July2008,JSBwebsite,Criminal/Library/Evidence.
6. Forarrangementsforchildwitnessestogiveevidenceunderspecialmeasuresdirectionsseesections16
and21YouthJusticeandCriminalEvidenceAct1999andParts29and30CriminalProcedureRules.
650
7. Fortheappropriateconductofinterviewswithchildwitnessesduringthepreparationofvideoevidence
seeAchievingBestEvidenceinCriminalProceedings:GuidanceforVulnerableandIntimatedWitnesses,
IncludingChildrenissuedbytheCrownProsecutionService.
651
Notealsotheimportanceofexpeditionin
recordingtheevidenceofaveryyoungwitnessandinensuringanearlytrialdate.
652
8. Forstandardsinhandlingtheevidenceofchildwitnesses,seetheimportantguidanceprovidedby
MeasuringUp:GoodPracticeGuidanceinManagingYoungWitnessCasesandQuestioningChildren,
PlotnikoffandWoolfson,July2009.
653
Footnotes
649
NotetheexaminationbytheCourtofAppeal(LordJudgeCJ)ofthecompetenceofachildof4yearsgivingevidenceabout
matterswhichoccurredwhenshewasaged3andthesafetyoftheverdictwhichfollowedinB[2010]EWCACrim4
650
FortheCriminalProcedureRules29and30seehttp://www.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fn/contents/rules
651
http://www.cps.gov/Publications/docs/Achieving_Best_Evidence_FINAL.pdf.SeealsoTheEqualTreatmentBenchbookPart4
(Children),Chapter4.4
652
Forarecentexample,seeMalicki[2009]EWCACrim365
653
http://www.nspcc.org/Inform/research/Findings/measuring_up_guidance_wdf66581.pdf.SeealsopaperYoungandVulnerable
Witnesses:ResearchSummaries,JSBwebsite,Criminal/Seminars/SSOSJuly2008/winzip/Item5.
3o7
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
9. Theprincipalpurposeofthissectionistoaddressthewaysinwhichthejurysassessmentoftheevidence
ofachildmaydifferfromtheirassessmentoftheevidenceofanadult.
Directions
Thetrialjudgewillneedtoassesswhetheritisappropriatetosayanythingatalltothejuryabouttheevidence
ofchildwitnesses.However,achildwhogivesevidencehasalwaysviewedtheeventsdescribedthroughthe
eyesandwiththemindofachildand,wherethatisso,itwillprobablybenecessarytogivethejurysome
assistance.Thefunctionofthejudgeisnottogiveexpertevidenceaboutthechildunderconsiderationbut
toassistthejurywiththecommonexperienceofthecourts.Theadvicewillconcernthedifferentstagesof
intellectualandemotionaldevelopmentofchildren,thewayinwhichtheyexperienceevents,andtheirability
toregisterandrecallthem.ThefollowingaresuggestedIllustrationsofsuchdirections.
654
Illustration childs experience and understanding not those of an adult a child may now be
aware that behaviour is wrong by adult standards but not understand why allowance for a childs
diffdence in using unfamiliar and naughty words
Amostimportantpartofyourtaskistojudgewhetherthechildwitnesseshavetoldthetruth,andhave
givenareliableaccountoftheeventstheyweredescribing.Someofyouwillhavechildrenandgrandchildren
whoareofasimilaragetothechildrenwhohavegivenevidence.Ifso,Ithinkyouwillrecognisethesenseof
theadviceIamgoingtoofferyouaboutyourjudgementoftheirevidence,butrememberthatIamspeaking
ofanapproachtotheevidenceandevaluationoftheevidenceisyourresponsibility.Youdonothaveto
acceptmyadviceandifyoudonotagreewithityoushouldrejectit.
Childrendonothavethesamelifeexperienceasadults.Theydonothavethesamestandardsoflogicand
consistency,andtheirunderstandingmaybeseverelylimitedforanumberofreasons,suchastheirage
andimmaturity.Lifeviewedthroughtheeyesandmindofachildmayseemverydifferentfromlifeviewed
byanadult.Childrenmaynotfullyunderstandwhatitisthattheyaredescribing,andtheymaynothave
thewordstodescribeit.Theymay,however,havecometorealisethatwhattheyaredescribingis,byadult
standards,bador,intheirperception,naughty.Theymaybeembarrassedaboutit,andaboutusingwords
they think are naughty, and therefore fnd it diffcult to speak. Bear in mind that they are being asked
questionsbyanadulttheyseeasbeinginapositionofauthority-thepolicemanintheinterview,oran
advocateincourt,orindeedme.Thatcanmakeitdiffcultforthem.Rememberhowyounormallytalkto
childrenofthisage.Howdiffcultmustitbeiftheforminwhichaquestionputiscomplicatedorchallenging
orconceptual(suchasHowdidyoufeel?orWhydidntyou?),andyoushouldbearthosediffcultiesin
mindwhenyouconsidertheanswersgiven.
Alldecisionsabouttheevidenceareforyoutomake.Ionlyadvisecautionagainstjudgingchildrenbythe
samestandardsasyouwouldanadult.
17: sexual offenCes
Footnotes
654
WithacknowledgementandthankstoHHJudgeSallyCahillQC
3o8
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration past conduct young child diffculty with recalling detail and sequence conceptual
questions
Your task includes the assessment of the evidence of a child aged....At times during the video interview
andinevidence,itwasapparentthatshe(he)washavingdiffcultywithsomequestionsandwithrecall,
particularlyofdetailandsequence.Thereisadangerthatinformalsituationswetendtojudgechildrenby
thesamestandardsaswewouldanadult.Thatwouldbeamistake.
Childrendonothavethesamestandardsoflogic,understandingandconsistencyasadultsdo;theydonot
havethesameexperienceoflifeasadultsdo,andarenecessarilylesssophisticated.
Experiencehasshownanumberofthings.Achildmaynotfullyunderstandthesignifcanceofactivitywhich
issexualandthatmayberefectedinthewaytheyrememberitordescribeit.Achildsperceptionofthe
passageoftimeisverylikelytobedifferentfromthatofanadult.Achildsmemorycanfadeeveninthe
shortterm.Whenrecountingeventslater,evenafairlyshorttimelater,achildsrecallofwhenandinwhat
ordereventsoccurredmaynotbeaccurate.She(he)maywellnotbeabletospeakofthecontextinwhich
thoseeventsoccurred.Achildmayhaveparticulardiffcultydealingwithconceptualquestionssuchashow
she(he)feltsometimeago,orwhyshe(he)didordidnottakeaparticularcourseofaction.Thosearenot
thesortofquestionswhicharelikelytoencourageameaningfulorreliableresponse.
Yourtaskistojudgewhethertheessentialpartsofthewitnessevidenceweretruthfullygivenand,ifso,
whethertheyarereliable.Errorsandinconsistenciesindetailandinthesequenceofeventsmaynot,inthe
caseofachild,beanyindicationofuntruthfulnessorunreliabilityontheessentialmatters.Thosedecisions
are,however,foryoutomake.Havingmadedueallowancefortheageandimmaturityofthewitness,you
shouldactonher(his)evidenceonlyifyouaresureitisrighttodoso.
Illustration child witness - abuse in a family setting late discovery - childs response and recall
Oneoftheissuesyouareaskedtoconsideriswhythesemattersdidnotcometolightsoonerthantheydid.
Itissuggestedonthedefendantsbehalfthatifthisactivitywastakingplacewithinthefamilyhomeitmust
havebecomeapparenttoothersinthehouseanditdidnot.Thisisamatterwhichyouwillneedtoresolve.
Itwouldbewisetocometothisissuewithoutanypreconceivedideawhatfamilylifewaslikeforthechild
whoseevidenceyouareconsidering.
Duringchildhoodthepeopleachildreliesuponandlovesmostareprobablythosewithwhomshe(he)
lives,andwhoprovideher(his)home.Achildwillusuallyacceptasthenormwhateverhappenswithin
thathome.Onechildwillknowthateverynightbeforebedtimeshe(he)hasabathandisreadabedtime
story.Thatchild,ifsubjectedtounwelcomeattention,mayexhibitunusualbehaviourwhichwillbenoticed
immediately.Anotherchildinadifferenthouseholdwillknowthather(his)parentalwayswatchestelevision
intheeveningandshe(he)islefttoputherself(himself)tobed.Anychangeinthatchildsbehaviourmay
notregisterbecausethechildisnotthecentreofattention.Bothofthesechildrenhaveafamilynorm,but
theyaredifferent,andallowancesneedtobemadeforthosedifferences.
There is another way in which a childs perception of normality may affect the way she (he) recalls
events. Depending upon the individual child and the relationship between the child and the adults in
the household, one child may be more compliant than another. One child may, while another will not,
acceptwhather(his)parentdoeswithoutquestionand,ifitbecomesroutineorregular,itmaynotseemto
3o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
thechildtobeparticularlymemorable.Thatmayaffectthewayinwhichthechildrememberseventswhen
sometimelatershe(he)isaskedtosaywhathappened.Experienceshowsthatachilddoesnotalways
appreciatethatwhatishappeningtothemintheirownhomedoesnotalsohappeninotherfamilies,and
thechildmayonlycometorealisethatasshe(he)growsolder.Evenasanadultitisnotalwayseasytosay
whensomethingwhichhasbecomeroutinefrsthappenedorhow.
Theexperienceofthecourtsisthatanassessmentofachildsevidencehastobemadewithinthecontext
of the home life that particular child was leading, and with an appreciation how the immaturity and
dependencyoftheindividualchildmayaffectit.Thesemattersare,however,foryoutoresolveandnotfor
me.Youmustreachthedecisionwhetheryouaresurethechildsevidencewastruthfulandreliableinits
essentials.Ifyouarenotsure,youshouldnotactuponit.
Illustration grooming
Itisnottheprosecutioncasethatthecomplainantwassubjectedtoasuddenorviolentassault;rather,
itissaidthatthedefendantpreparedher(him)toenabletheabusetotakeplace.Thisistheincremental
processknownasgrooming.Itmightbegin,forexample,withthetouchingofachildinanunthreatening
waysothatshe(he)becomesusedtoitandprogressinsmallstagestomoreadvancedsexualactivity.Such
aprocessmayinvolvetouchingthatmayappeartothechildtobeharmlessfun,suchastickling,whichin
mostcircumstancesitwouldbe.Thechildmayhavenoideathatshe(he)isatanyrisk.Whenthetouching
becomesmoreintrusiveitmay,asaresultoftrustandfamiliarity,beacceptedwithoutfear,distressordislike
asbeinganormalpartoftherelationship.Thatmeansitmaybeespeciallydiffcultforachildtoremember
laterwhenandwhereandhowthetouchingstarted.Thisiswhatgroomingis.Whethertheprosecutionhas
proveditiswhathappenedinthiscaseisanothermatter.
Illustration a childs reason for silence
Childrencanbeconfusedaboutwhathashappenedtothem;sometimeschildrenblamethemselvesforwhat
hashappened.Sometimeschildrendonotspeakoutforfearthattheythemselveswillbeblamedforwhat
hastakenplace,orthroughfearoftheconsequencesshouldtheydoso.Theymayfeelthattheymaynotbe
believed.Theymayfeartheywillbepunished.Theymaybeembarrassedbecausetheydidnotappreciate
atthetimethatwhattheyweredoingwaswrong.Theymaybeembarrassedbecausetheyfoundthatsome
aspectsoftheattentiontheyweregettingfromtheindividualconcernedwereenjoyable.Ontheotherhand
theymaysimplyblankitoutandgetonwiththeirlivesuntilthepointcomeswhentheyfeelreadytospeak
out.
Thesediffcultiescanbecompoundedwhenwhathappensoccurswithinthefamilycontextandinvolves
a family member who in all other respects is close to the child and who may be in a position of power
andinfuenceinrelationtothatchild.Apartfromtheabuse,thechildmayfeelloveoraffectionforthe
abuser.Thechildmayfeelloyaltybothtotheabuserandtootherfamilymembers.She(he)mayfearthe
consequencesforherself(himself),fortheabuser,orforsomeoneelse,suchasher(his)motherorsiblings.
Asaresult,achildcanhaveveryconfusedandmixedfeelingaboutwhethertospeakout.
17: sexual offenCes
370
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thesediffcultiescanbecompoundedwhenwhathappensoccurswithinthefamilycontextandinvolves
a family member who in all other respects is close to the child and who may be in a position of power
andinfuenceinrelationtothatchild.Apartfromtheabuse,thechildmayfeelloveoraffectionforthe
abuser.Thechildmayfeelloyaltybothtotheabuserandtootherfamilymembers.She(he)mayfearthe
consequencesforherself(himself),fortheabuser,orforsomeoneelse,suchasher(his)motherorsiblings.
Asaresult,achildcanhaveveryconfusedandmixedfeelingaboutwhethertospeakout.
Imentionthesepossibilitiesbecauseexperienceshowsthatchildrendonotallreactthesamewaytosexual
attentionfromanadult.Itwouldbeamistaketothinkthatchildrenbehaveinthesamewayasadults,
because their reaction to events is conditioned by their personal experience and immaturity and not by
anymoralorbehaviouralstandardtaughtorlearned.Whathappenedinthisparticularcaseis,however,a
decisionforyoutomakeandnotforme.Yourtaskistodecidewhetheryouaresurethatthecomplainant
hasgivenyouatruthfulandreliableaccounther(his)experience.
371
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) Consent, Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication
Introduction
655

What is consent?
1. ForthepurposesofPart1oftheSexualOffencesAct2003apersonconsentstosexualactivityifheor
sheagreesbychoiceandhasthefreedomandcapacitytomakethatchoice.
656
2. ThephraseswhichexplainwhattheActmeansbyconsentareagreebychoiceandfreedomand
capacitytomakethatchoice.
Free choice and capacity
3. Thereisavarietyoffactualcircumstancesinwhich,onapplicationofthestatutorytest,thecomplainant
willnothavebeenconsenting:
(i) Avictimofrapemayhavemadenochoiceatallifsexualintercoursewasachievedbyforce;
(ii) Her(orhis)choicemayhavebeenmadenottohavesexualintercourse,buther(his)willwas
overcomebyforce;
(iii) Butneitherforcenorresistanceisarequirementofrape.
657
She(he)mayhavemadenochoice
becauseshe(he)frozewithfear;
(iv) Achoicemayhavebeenmadebythevictimtosubmitbutitwasnotafreechoicebecausethe
submissionwasengenderedbyfearoftheconsequencesofnotsubmitting;
(v) She(he)mayhavemadenochoicebecauseshe(he)hadnocapacitytomakeit.
Incapacity of the complainant
4. Acapacitytomakeafreechoicemaybeabsentthroughunconsciousnessinsleeporbyconsumptionof
drinkordrugs.
7. However,thefactthatadrunkenpersonisnotcompletelyunconscious,perhapsinsuchastateof
drunkennessthatshe(he)isdriftinginandoutofconsciousnessorsleep,doesnotimplythatshe(he)
eitherhadthecapacitytomakeafreechoiceorthatshe(he)didmakeafreechoice.Whereaquestionof
capacityarisesintheevidenceitmustbeleftthejurytodecide.
658
8. Allthese,andperhapsother,factualsituationsmayariseinatrialfornon-consensualsexualoffences.
Directionstothejurywillrequireaconcentrationupontheparticularfactsofthecaseandthelawof
consentshouldbeexplainedthroughthemediumofthosefactsandnotjustasanabstractconcept.
17: sexual offenCes
Footnotes
655
Seealsotheevidentialpresumptionsaboutconsentinsections75and76SexualOffencesAct2003whichinpracticeseldom
apply.
656
Section74SOA2003
657
Norisitarequirementthatlackofconsentshouldbecommunicatedtothedefendant:Malone[1998]2CrAppR447;Hysa
658
Hysa[2007]EWCACrim2056
372
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Voluntary intoxication of complainant
9. Thestateofdrunkennessofthecomplainantisrelevantinthefollowingways:
(1) Alcoholordrugsmayhaveadisinhibitingeffectuponthecomplainant;
(2) Thecomplainantmaybesodrunkthather(his)capacitytoconsentisremoved,orshe(he)in
factexercisesnochoicewhethertoagreeornot.
Onlyapersonwhohasthecapacitytomakeachoice,andagreesbychoicefreelymade,consentsto
sexualactivity.Iftheissueofcapacityarisesitmustbedealtwithinthejudgesdirections.
659
Voluntary intoxication of defendant

10. Thedrunkennessofthedefendantprovideshimwithnodefence.Touchingorpenetrationmustbe
theconsequenceofadeliberate(asopposedtoanaccidental)act,drunkenornot.Itisnotnecessary
thatthedefendantshouldhaveintendedpenetration.
660
Theissueofconsentbythecomplainant
dependsuponthecomplainantsstateofmind.Ifthedefendantclaimsthathereasonablybelievedthat
thecomplainantconsented,therearetwoissuesforthejurytoconsider:(i)whetherthecomplainant
wasinfactconsenting;(ii)whetherthedefendanthonestlybelievedthecomplainantwasconsenting,
ajudgementinrespectofwhichthejurywilltakethedefendantashewas,drunkorsober;and(iii)
whetherhisbeliefwasreasonableinthecircumstances,anobjectivejudgementwhichrequiresthejury
toadoptthestandardofasober,notadrunken,defendant.
661
Ifthedefendantwasmistakenastothose
circumstances,andthejuryissurethatthedefendantsmistakewasmadebecausehewasdrunk,he
willnotbeabletorelyontheconsequencesofhismistake.Nevertheless,ifthedefendantsbeliefwas
reasonable,althoughdrunken,itwasreasonableforthepurposesofsection1SOA2003.
Directions
Thetrialjudgesdirectionstothejuryontheissueofconsentshouldbeexpressedwithinthecontextofthe
evidenceandshoulddealwiththeparticularfactualissueswhichthejurywillhavetodecide.
Footnotes
659
Bree[2007]2CrAppR13,[2007]EWCACrim804;Coates[2008]1CrAppR3,[2007]EWCACrim1471.At34ofBree,the
PresidentsaidInourjudgment,theproperconstructionofsection74ofthe2003Act,asappliedtotheproblemnowunder
discussion,leadstoclearconclusions.If,throughdrink(orforanyotherreason)thecomplainanthastemporarilylosther
capacitytochoosewhethertohaveintercourseontherelevantoccasion,sheisnotconsenting,andsubjecttoquestionsabout
thedefendantsstateofmind,ifintercoursetakesplace,thiswouldberape.However,wherethecomplainanthasvoluntarily
consumedevensubstantialquantitiesofalcohol,butneverthelessremainscapableofchoosingwhetherornottohave
intercourse,andindrinkagreestodoso,thiswouldnotberape.Weshouldperhapsunderlinethat,asamatterofpractical
reality,capacitytoconsentmayevaporatewellbeforeacomplainantbecomesunconscious.Whetherthisissoornot,however,is
factspecifc,ormoreaccurately,dependsontheactualstateofmindoftheindividualsinvolvedontheparticularoccasion.
660
Heard[2007]EWCACrim125.See,however,thecriticismoftheCourtsobiterremarksastothedifferencebetweencrimesof
basicandspecifcintentinSmithandHogan12ed.page300
661
C.f.Archbold17-116
373
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration students drinking heavily some consensual sexual contact complainant drowsy or
worse under the effects of sleep and alcohol issues of capacity and consent
662
relevance of the
defendants own state of intoxication
Theprosecutionmustprovethreethings:
1. Thedefendantpenetratedthevaginaofthecomplainantwithhispenis;
2. Thecomplainantdidnotconsent;
3. Thedefendantdidnotreasonablybelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting.
Ineedtoexplainhowthoseissuesneedtobeapproachedinthecontextofthefactsofthiscase.Whatisthat
context?Iwillremindyouoftheevidenceinmoredetaillaterbuthereisasummary.Thecomplainantand
thedefendantmetinthestudentsunionbaraftertheyhadbeenplayingfortheirrespectiveteams.They
bothhadagreatdealtodrink.Attheendoftheeveningthedefendantwalkedthecomplainanthometo
herfat.Theyhadcoffeetogether.Therewassomekissingandfondlingbetweenthem.Thecomplainant
saidthatshetoldthedefendantshehadtogotosleepandlaydownonthebed.Sherecallsnothingelse
until,intheearlyhours,shewoketofndthatshewasalone.Herjeanswereatthefootofthebed.Shehad
onelegstillinherknickers.Thecomplainanthasnomemoryofsexualintercoursetakingplace,issurethat
shewouldnothaveconsented,buthasnoawarenesswhethersheconsentedornot.Thedefendantaccepts
thatthecomplainantsaidshehadtogotosleepandlaydownonthebed.Helayalongsideher.Afterabout
anhourhestartedtofondlethecomplainant.Shemadesomemurmuringnoiseswhichhetooktobean
expressionofpleasure.Heremovedherjeansandpartlyremovedherknickers.Receivingnoresistance,which
hethoughtmeantthatthecomplainantwasconsenting,hehadsexualintercoursewiththecomplainantto
ejaculation.Heagreedthatnowordwasspokenbetweenthemthroughout.Askedwhyheleftthefat,he
saidthatheneededtogetbacktoownplacetosleepitoffhehadanassignmenttopreparethenextday.
Penetration
There is no issue that penetration took place. The issues for you to resolve concern consent and the
defendantsreasonablebeliefinconsent.
Consent
The frst issue for you to decide is whether the prosecution has proved so that you are sure that the
complainantdidnotgiveherconsent.Consent,youwillrealise,isastateofmindwhichcantakemany
forms from willing enthusiasm to reluctant acquiescence. For the purposes of the charge of rape the Act
ofParliamentisveryspecifcaboutthemeaningofconsent.Thecomplainantconsentedif,andonlyif,(i)
shehadthefreedomandcapacitytomakeachoiceand(ii)sheexercisedthatchoicetoagreetosexual
intercourse.Theagreementneednot,ofcourse,begiveninwordsprovidedthatthewomanwasagreeing
withhermind.
17: sexual offenCes
Footnotes
662
Notesection75(1)and(2)(d)SOA2003.Inthisillustrationitisassumedthatthedefendanthasadducedsuffcientevidenceto
raisetheissueofconsentandreasonablebeliefinconsent
374
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Youmaywonderwhetherthefactthatthecomplainanthadbeendrinkingheavilyaffectseitherofthose
questions. There are two ways in which drink can affect the individual depending upon the degree of
intoxication. First, it can remove inhibitions. A person may do things when intoxicated which she would
not,orbelesslikelytodo,ifsober.Second,shemayconsumesomuchalcoholthatitaffectsherstateof
awareness.Youneedtoreachaconclusionwhatwasthecomplainantsstateofdrunkennessandsleepiness.
Wasshejustdisinhibited,orhadthemixtureofsleepinessanddrunkennessremovedhercapacitytoexercise
achoice?
Awomanclearlydoesnothavethefreedomandcapacitytomakeachoiceifsheisunconsciousthrough
theeffectsofdrinkandsleep.Thereare,ofcourse,variousstagesofconsciousnessfromwideawaketodim
awarenessofreality.Inastateofdimanddrunkenawarenessyoumayormaynotbeinaconditiontomake
choices.Youwillneedtoconsidertheevidenceofthecomplainantsstateanddecidethesetwoquestions:
Wassheinaconditioninwhichshewascapableofmakinganychoice,onewayorother?Ifyouaresureshe
wasnotthenshedidnotconsent.If,ontheotherhand,youconcludethatthecomplainantchosetoagree
tosexualintercourse,ormayhavedone,thenyoumustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
Youreachthestageofconsideringthedefendantsstateofmindonlyifyouaresurethecomplainantdidnot
consent.
Belief in consent
Thenextquestioniswhetherthedefendanthonestlybelievedthatthecomplainantwasconsenting.Ifyou
aresurethatthedefendantkneweitherthat(i)thecomplainantwasinnoconditiontomakeachoiceone
wayortheotheror(ii)thecomplainanthadmadenochoicetoagreetosexualintercourse,thenyouwill
besurethatthedefendantdidnothonestlybelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting.Ifthatisyour
conclusion,yourverdictwouldbeguilty.
If, on the other hand, you conclude that the defendant did believe, or may have believed, that the
complainant was consenting, you need to consider the fnal question which is whether his belief was
reasonableinthecircumstances.
Reasonableness of belief and the effect of drink
Thedefendanthadalsoconsumedagreatdealofalcohol.However,youneedtolookatallthecircumstances
astheywouldhaveappearedtothedefendanthadhebeensober.Wouldorshouldthedefendanthave
realised that the complainant was at best drowsy and at worst unconscious? If so, would it have been
reasonableorunreasonableforthedefendanttobelievethatshewasconsenting?Inconsideringwhetherthe
defendantsbeliefwasreasonableyoushouldtakeaccountofanystepstakenbythedefendanttoascertain
thatshewasconsenting.Thedefendantdoesnotclaimthathecheckedtoseewhetherthecomplainantwas
awareofwhatwashappening.
Ifyouaresurethatthedefendantshouldhaverealisedthatthecomplainantwasinnoconditiontomake
achoice,orthatthecomplainantwasnotagreeingbychoice,thenhisbeliefwasunreasonableandyour
verdictwouldbeguilty.But,ifyouconcludethatthedefendantsbeliefwasormayhavebeenreasonablein
thecircumstances,youmustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
IhavepreparedforyouawrittenRoutetoVerdictwhichwillenableyou,ifyoufollowit,toconsidereachof
thesequestionsinthecorrectsequenceand,bythatmeans,toreachyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
37S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
PleaseanswerQuestion1frstandproceedasdirected
Question 1
Didthedefendantpenetratethevaginaofthecomplainantwithhispenis?
Question 2
Didthecomplainantconsenttotheactofpenetration?(SeeNote1below)
Ifyouaresureshedidnotconsent,proceedtoquestion3
Ifyouconcludethatthecomplainantdidconsentormayhaveconsented,verdictnotguilty
Question 3
Didthedefendantbelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting?(SeeNote2below)
Ifyouaresurethedefendantdidnotbelievethatthecomplainantwasconsenting,verdictguilty
If you conclude that the defendant did believe or may have believed that the complainant was
consenting,proceedtoquestion4
Question 4
Wasthedefendantsbeliefreasonableinthecircumstances?(SeeNote3below)
Ifyouaresureitwasnotareasonablyheldbelief,verdictguilty
Ifyouconcludethatitwasormayhavebeenareasonablyheldbelief,verdictnotguilty
Note 1:
The complainant consented only if, while having the freedom and capacity to make the choice,
she agreed to sexual intercourse. You will need to consider whether the complainant was in
any condition (while under the infuence of sleep and alcohol) to make and exercise a choice,
and whether she did in fact exercise a choice. If she did agree to sexual intercourse, it was not
necessary for her to communicate that agreement to the defendant, provided that in her mind
she was agreeing.
Note 2:
If the defendant was aware that the complainant was in no condition to exercise a choice or
that she was making no choice, then he did not believe that she was consenting.
Note 3:
When judging whether the defendants belief was reasonably held you should consider the
circumstances as they would have appeared to the defendant had he been sober. Should the
defendant have realised that the complainant was exercising no choice or was in no condition
to make a choice whether to have sexual intercourse with him?
17: sexual offenCes
37o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration allegation of rape within long term partnership issue of consent
663

Thedefendantandthecomplainanthadalongstandingrelationship;theylivedtogetherinCardiff,they
hadtwochildrenandtheyhadengagedinmanyactsofsexualintercourse.
Itisafactrelevanttotheissuesofconsentandbeliefinconsentthattheylivedtogetherinalongstanding
relationship.Whensexualintercourseoccursbetweentwopeople,yourapproachtothequestionofconsent
maywellbedifferentinasituationwherethepartieslivetogetherandhavelivedtogetherforalongtime
fromasituationwhere,forexample,theyhavejustmet.Thequestionswhicharisearethesameineach
case;buttheanswerswillbegiveninthelightofallthecircumstancesandalltheevidence,includingthe
factthattheyhavehadalongstandingrelationship.
Inlaw,ahusbandoralong-termorashort-termpartner,forthatmatter,canbeconvictedoftherapeofhis
partneriftheconstituentsoftheoffenceareproved,notwithstandinghisrelationshipwiththevictim.
Inconsideringwhetheritisprovedthatthecomplainantdidnotconsent,bearinmindthatwhenpeople
enter into long-term relationships or marriage they usually contemplate regular sexual relations. In most
partnerships,evennotentirelyhappyones,thereisoftengiveandtakebetweenthepartnersonsexualas
onothermatters.Afemalepartnermaynotparticularlywantsexualintercourseonaparticularoccasion
butbecauseitisherhusbandorherpartnerwhoisaskingforitshewillconsenttosexualintercourse.Ifsuch
consentisgivenreluctantlyoroutofasenseofdutytoherpartner,itisstillaconsent.
However, a woman is entitled to say no even to her husband or long-term partner. There is a critical
difference between free agreement, on the one hand, and mere submission under coercion, physical or
mental,ontheother.Itisforyoutodecidewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedsothatyouaresurethatthe
complainantdidnotconsent.Youneedtoapplyyourcombinedgoodsenseandexperiencetotheevidence
youhaveheard.
Sources
Archbold20-10,20-14;BlackstoneB3.16/22;Smith&Hogan12ed.Pages673-690,698-701;Rookand
Ward,SexualOffencesLawandPractice,3rdEd,1.71,Supplement2008,1.88
Footnotes
663
AfterthesummingupofPillJ(ashethenwas)inMohammedZafar(92/2762/W2)approvedonappeal
377
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 18: jury ManageMent
(1) Empanelling the Jury
Procedure for excusing jury service
1. ParagraphIV.42oftheConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirectionprovides:
Jury service
(IV.42.1)Theeffectofsection321CriminalJusticeAct2003wastoremovecertaincategoriesof
personsfromthosepreviouslyineligibleforjuryservice(thejudiciaryandothersconcernedwiththe
administrationofjustice)andcertainothercategoriesceasedtobeeligibleforexcusalasofright(such
asmembersofParliamentandmedicalprofessionals).Juryserviceisanimportantpublicdutywhich
individualmembersofthepublicarechosenatrandomtoundertake.Thenormalpresumptionisthat
everyone,unlessmentallydisorderedordisqualifed,willberequiredtoservewhensummonedtodo
so.Thislegislativechangehas,however,meantanincreaseinthenumberofjurorswithprofessional
andpublicservicecommitments.Oneoftheresultsofthischangeisthattrialjudgesmustcontinue
tobealerttotheneedtoexercisetheirdiscretiontoadjournatrial,excuseordischargeajurorshould
theneedarise.Whetherornotanapplicationhasalreadybeenmadetothejurysummoningoffcer
fordeferralorexcusalitisalsoopentothepersonsummonedtoapplytothecourttobeexcused.
Suchapplicationsmustbeconsideredwithcommonsenseandaccordingtotheinterestsofjustice.An
explanationshouldberequiredforanapplicationbeingmuchlaterthannecessary.
(IV.42.2)Whereajurorappearsonajurypanel,itmaybeappropriateforajudgetoexcusethe
jurorfromthatparticularcasewherethepotentialjurorispersonallyconcernedwiththefactsofthe
particularcaseoriscloselyconnectedwithaprospectivewitness.Wherethelengthofthetrialis
estimatedtobesignifcantlylongerthanthenormalperiodofjuryservice,itisgoodpracticeforthe
trialjudgetoenquirewhetherthepotentialjurorsonthejurypanelforeseeanydiffcultieswiththe
lengthandifthejudgeissatisfedthatthejurorsconcernsarejustifedhemaysaythattheyarenot
requiredforthatparticularjury.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthejudgemustexcusethejurorfromsitting
atthatcourtaltogetherasitmaywellbepossibleforthejurortositonashortertrialatthesame
court.
2. Sincetheremovalofdisqualifcationforcertainclassesofoccupationmadebysection321andSchedule
33CriminalJusticeAct2003,therewillbeaneedforthetrialjudgetoconsiderwhetherapoliceoffcer
oranemployeeoftheprosecutingserviceshouldbestooddownfromserviceonajuryontheground
thattherewouldotherwisebeanappearanceofbias.Thetrialjudgewillneedtoexaminetheparticular
circumstancesoftheforthcomingtrialandofthejurortoascertainwhetheranappearanceoflackof
impartialityisproperlyarguable.
664
Thequestionforthejudgeiswhetherafairmindedandinformed
observer,havingconsideredthefacts,wouldconcludethattherewasarealpossibilitythatthetribunal
wasbiased.
18: jury ManageMent
Footnotes
664
SeeAbdroikov[2007]1WLR2679,[2008]1CrAppR21,[2007]UKHL37;Khan[2008]2CrAppR13,[2008]EWCACrim531;
Yemoh[2009]EWCACrim930
378
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Thejudgemustdischargethesummonsofajurorheconsiderstohaveaninsuffcientunderstanding
ofEnglish.
665
Hehasthediscretiontostanddownjurorswhoarenotcompetenttoservebyreasonof
personaldisabilitysuchasblindnessordeafness,
666
butinthecaseofablindjuror,theremaywellbetrials
notinvolvingthestudyofdocumentsinwhichthedisabilitycanbeaccommodated.
Long or controversial trials
4. Atthecommencementofalongorcontroversialtrial,timespentensuringthat(i)jurorsarenotliable
tosufferaconfictofinterestthroughknowledgeofwitnessesorcloseassociationwiththeimmediate
communityaffectedbytheallegedoffence,and(ii)thatjurorscanservethroughoutthelengthofthe
trial,istimewellspent.
5. Inexceptionalcases,
667
whichlistingoffcersroutinelyidentify,amuchenlargedjurypanelcanbe
summonedforDay1andthefollowingprocedureadopted:
(1) Theadvocatesarerequestedinadvancetoprepareawrittenquestionnaire.Initjurorsare
informedoftheoutsidedateforcompletionofthetrial,thenamesofwitnesses,theiroccupationsif
theyareprofessionalwitnesses,andthelocalityfromwhichtheycome.
(2) OnDay1thejurypanelisinvitedintocourtwherethejudgeexplainsinoutlinewhatthecase
isaboutandthetwo-stageprocedureforselectionofthejury.Eachjurorisaskedtoreturntothe
waitingareawithacopyofthequestionnaire.Theyareaskedtowritetheirfullnameatthetopof
thequestionnaire.Whenspecialsecuritymeasuresareinplacethejurorscanbeprovidedwitha
numberedquestionnaireandalistkeptbythejurybailiffsidentifyingwhichnumbershavehavebeen
providedtowhichjurors.Thejurorsareaskedtoidentifyinwriting(i)thenamesofanywitnessesthey
mayknow,andthecontextofthatknowledge;(ii)anyreason(suchasemployment,self-employment,
holidaysbooked,familycommitments,illness)whythejurorshouldbeexcusedserviceinatrialof
suchlength;and(iii)anyotherreasonwhyitmightbedesirableforthejurortobeexcused(suchas
priorknowledgeoforfamiliaritywiththecase).Conventionally,jurorsinwaitingareinformedbefore
theyretirethatjuryserviceisanimportantpublicdutyandthatitisonlyinspecialcircumstancesthat
thejudgewillbeabletoexcuseajurorfromservice.
(3) Thecompletedquestionnairesarehandedtothejudgeeitherforballotforthefnaljuryorfor
apreliminarysiftfromwhichthefnalballotwilltakeplaceonDay2.Thepartiesareentitledtosee
thecompletedquestionnairesiftheywish.Inopencourtthenamesofthejurorsortheirnumbers
arecalled.
668
Aseachnameornumberiscalledthejurorwillcomeforward.Ifthejurorraisesno
impedimenttoserviceinthetrial,heorsheisaddedtojuryortothesiftedjurypanel.Ifthejuror
raisesanyimpedimentorrequeststobeexcusedthejudgewillconsideranddealwithit.Theprocess
ispublic.Somejurorswillbereluctanttodiscusspersonalmatterspubliclyandwillprefertoapproach
thejudgetoaddresshim/herpersonally.Somediscretionispermissibleprovidedthematterreallyis
personalandtheconversationisrecorded.Ifthejudgedecidestoexcusethejurorthereason,ifnot
itsdetails,shouldbemadepublic.Eitherthejurorwillbeexcusedorthejudgewillrequirethejurorto
remainonthejuryasballotedorwiththesiftedpanel.Inthelattercase,whenapanelof20-30jurors
Footnotes
665
Section10JuriesAct1974
666
Mason[1981]QB881
667
ForapprovalofaprocedurebywhichcategoriesofjurorsareidentifedasunsuitableseeJalil[2008]EWCACrim2910at39-45
668
FortheproprietyoftheexceptionaluseofnumberswhenjuryprotectionisrequiredseeComerford[1998]1WLR191,[1998]1Cr
AppR235
37
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
isavailabletheprocesscanstop.Thesiftedjurorsareaskedtoremainandtheothersaskedtoreturnto
theirwaitingareaeithertorejointhepanelavailableforothercasesortobereleasedaltogether.
(4) Thesiftedpanelistoldthatthesecondstageoftheprocessofselectionwillbecompletedinthe
morning.Itspurposeistoenablejurorstimeforfurtherrefectionupontheircommitmentsovernight,
andtoconsultwithfamilymembersandemployersifnecessary.Theywill,iftheirnameiscalledon
thesecondday,haveafurtheropportunitytomakerepresentationsastowhytheyshouldexcused.
(5) OnDay2theremaining20-30memberjurypanelreturnstocourt.Itisfromthispanelthatthe
fnalgroupof12willbeselectedatrandom.Namesarecalledandfurtherrepresentationsdealtwith
asnecessary.
6. Theadvantageofthisprocessisthatisreducestheprospectsofafalsestartbecauseonthesecondor
thirddayofthetrialajurorremembersacommitmentwhichcannotbeavoidedorawitnesswhomhe
knows.
Challenging jurors
7. Thereisnopowerinthecourttoselectajuryonthegroundsofreligionorraceandnoobjectiontaken
onthegroundsoftheneedforreligiousorracialrepresentationonthejurycansucceed.
669
8. ThefollowingisanotepreparedbytheLawCommissionfortheassistanceofLordLaneCJandWatkins
LJandissuedinOctober1989withtheirapprovalaftertheabolitionoftherighttoperemptorychallenge
bytheCriminalJusticeAct1988section118(1):
1. The Judges Powers
ThisNoteisprincipallyconcernedwiththeproceduretobefollowedwhenthejudgeishearingachallenge
forcause.Inadditiontohisdutytodeterminechallenges,thejudgealsohasadiscretiontoexcludefrom
serviceindividualjurorswhoareunlikelytobeableproperlytodischargetheirdutiesbecauseofphysical
ormentalinfrmity,ormentalpreoccupationwith,e.g.,theimpendingdeathofarelative.Inaproper
case,thejudgemayexercisethatdiscretionevenifneithersideentersachallenge.
2. Composition of the Panel and Selection of the Jury
Thecompositionofthepanelistheresponsibilityofthesummoningoffcer,actingunderthedirection
oftheLordChancellor.Theselectionofanindividualjuryfromthatpanelmustbedeterminedbyballot
in open court (Juries Act 1974, section 11). The judge has no discretion to interfere with either the
compositionofthepanelortheprocessofselectionofthejury.InRvThomas(88CrAppR370)which
suggeststhecontrary,theexistenceofsuchadiscretionwaswronglyconceded.Thejudgesdiscretion
islimitedtotheexclusionofindividuallyunftjurors;seeRvFord(Royston),(1989)TheTimes,31July,per
LordLaneCJ.
670

18: jury ManageMent
Footnotes
669
Ford[1989]QB868.InSmith[2003]WLR2229,[2003]EWCACrim283,theCourtofAppealheldthattherandomnatureofjury
selectionproducinganallwhitejurytotryablackdefendantchargedwithsection18grievousbodilyharmtoawhitevictimdid
notoffendArt6ECHRortheHumanRightsAct1998
670
[1989]QB868
380
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. Procedure on Challenge; Preliminary
Achallengemaybetothepanelorpartpanel,ortoanindividualjuror;itisimportanttorequirecounsel
immediatelytomakeplainwhichformofchallengeheispursuing.Inadditiontothejudgesordinary
powers,section118(2)oftheCriminalJusticeAct1988givesthejudgediscretiontohearanychallengefor
causeincameraorinchambers;thenatureandgroundsofchallengewilldeterminewhetherheshould
exercisethatdiscretion,orwhetherheshouldhearthechallengeinopencourt.Ashorthandnoteshould
betakenofallproceedingsandineverycasethefactofthechallengeandthecourtsdecisiononitshould
beenteredonthecourtrecord.
4. Challenge to the Panel or Part Panel
4.1Beforeanyjurorsinwaitingarecalledintocourt,counselseekingtochallengethepanelorpart
panelshouldsubmithiswrittengroundsforthechallenge,whichshouldbeputonthecourtrecord.
4.2Attheoutsetthejudgeshouldensurethatcounselunderstandsthat(i)achallengetothepanel
willonlybeentertainedifthesummoningoffcerhasactedconsciouslyanddeliberatelyinbreach
of his duty to summon the panel on a random basis and (ii) the composition of the panel is the
responsibilityoftheLordChancellorandnotofthejudge(JuriesAct1974section5;seeparagraph2
ante).
4.3Ifitappearstothecourtthatthereareprimafaciegroundsonwhichachallengetothepanel
couldbesupported,thesummoningoffcershouldbeaskedtoappeartoanswerthechallenge.Ifthe
groundsarecontested,thejudgemustdetermineafterhearingevidencewhetheritisborneout.The
burdenisonthechallengertosatisfythecourtonthebalanceofprobabilities.
4.4Ifthechallengeisoverruled,thejuryshouldbecalledintocourtinthenormalway.Thejudge
should make no further reference to the challenge. If the challenge is upheld, the judge should
adjournthetrialuntilanewpanelcanbeproduced.
5. Challenges to the Individual Jurors
5.1Thepresentprocedureshouldbefollowedwherebychallengesaremadewhentwelvejurorshave
beencalledtotheboxbutbeforethechallengedjurorissworn.Theaccusedshouldbeinformedof
hisrightofchallengebytheclerk.Theformulausedatpresent[nowseeArchbold(1999)4-235,page
386]
671
isappropriate.
5.2 On a challenge being indicated the juror should be asked to leave the jury box whilst the
remainder of the selected jurors are sworn.
672
Subsequent challenges should be dealt with in the
sameway.Then,ifcounselcanstatethegroundsofchallengewithoutprejudicinghisclientinthe
eyesofthejury,orembarrassingthejurorconcerned,thejudgemaybeabletodealwiththematter
inopencourtbriefyandinformally(e.g.,inacasewherethegroundisthatajurorisrelatedtoa
potentialwitness).
Footnotes
671
SeeArchbold(2009)4-234/236
672
Practicevaries.Itisperfectlypermissibleforthechallengedjurortobereplacedimmediatelyortobereplacedatanytimebefore
thedefendantisputincharge:Bhogal[1985]81CrAppR45
381
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5.3Whereitisnotpossibletodealwiththematterinformally,thejudgeshouldasktheswornjurors
toretiretotheirroominthechargeofthejurybailiffandtheremainderofthepanelshouldbeasked
toleavethecourtforthetimebeing.Thechallengedjurorshouldbekeptoutsidethecourtinthe
careofanusherbutclosebyincaseitisnecessarytoquestionhim.
5.4 The judge must next decide whether to hear the challenge in open court or to exclude the
publicandthepress.Ifthegroundsofchallengemakeitdesirableintheinterestsofjusticeandofthe
challengedjurortoclosethecourtthejudgeshouldannouncethatthecourtwillsitasinchambers
andthepublicandthepressshouldbeaskedtoleavethecourt.Challengesshouldnotbeheardin
thejudgesroom.
5.5Ifthegroundofchallengeappearsprimafacievalidandthefactsarecontestedthejudgemust
decidethefacts.Theburdenofproofisonthepartychallengingandisthecivilburden.Thejudgecan
hearevidence(whichshouldbegivenonthevoiredireoath)andhimselfquestionthejurorandmay
permitcounseltoaskquestionsdirectedtotheparticulargroundofchallengealleged;speculative
questionsseekingtoestablishthebasisforachallengeondifferentgroundsarenotpermitted.
5.6Afterhearingtheevidenceandanysubmissions,thejudgeshouldannouncehisfndings,which
shouldberecordedonthecourtrecord(seeparagraph3ante).
5.7Ifthechallengeisallowed,thejurorshouldbedischargedandafreshjurorcalledtotakehisplace
when the remainder of the jury have returned.
673
If the challenge is disallowed, the judge should
cautionthejurornottodisclosetootherjurorsanyofthemattersthathavebeenconsideredinthe
hearingofthechallengeandalsonottoallowthefactthathehasbeenchallengedtoinfuencehim
inanyway.
5.8 In any case in which the matters raised in the challenge might prejudice the trial, the judge
shouldconsidermakinganorderundersection4(2)oftheContemptofCourtAct1981.
5.9.Theprosecutionhasaright,rarelyexercised,toinviteaprospectivejurortostanddown.
674
5.10.Foranappropriateexplanationtothejuryoftheirfunctionandresponsibilitiesduringthetrial
seeChapter2IntroductoryWordsatCommencementofTrial
Sources
Juries:
Qualifcation:Archbold4-199/207;BlackstoneD13.1/3
Summoning:Archbold4-208/222;BlackstoneD13.7/14
Attendance, Deferral and Excusal:Archbold4-223/232;BlackstoneD13.4/6
Balloting, Swearing and Challenge:Archbold4-233/252;BlackstoneD13.16/4
18: jury ManageMent
Footnotes
673
Butseepara5.2above
674
McCann[1991]92CrAppR239;Chandler[1964]2QB322;Mason[1981QB881
382
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(2) Discharge of a Juror or Jury
Jurors obligation to raise problems with the judge
1. FollowingMirza
675
theCourtofAppealissuedapracticeDirectionnowincorporatedwithinthe
ConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirection:
Guidance to Jurors
(IV.42.5)Thefollowingdirectionstakeeffectimmediately.
(IV.42.6)Trialjudgesshouldensurethatthejuryisalertedtotheneedtobringanyconcerns
aboutfellowjurorstotheattentionofthejudgeatthetime,andnottowaituntilthecaseis
concluded.Atthesametime,itisundesirabletoencourageinappropriatecriticismoffellow
jurors,ortothreatenjurorswithcontemptofcourt.
(IV.42.7)Judgesshouldthereforetaketheopportunity,whenwarningthejuryofthe
importanceofnotdiscussingthecasewithanyoneoutsidethejury,toaddafurtherwarning.
Itisforthetrialjudgetotailorthefurtherwarningtothecase,andtothephraseologyused
intheusualwarning.Theeffectofthefurtherwarningshouldbethatitisthedutyofjurors
tobringtothejudgesattention,promptly,anybehaviouramongthejurorsorbyothers
affectingthejurors,thatcausesconcern.Thepointshouldbemadethat,unlessthatisdone
whilethecaseiscontinuing,itmaybeimpossibletoputmattersright.
676
(IV.42.8)TheJudgeshouldconsider,particularlyinalongertrial,whetherareminderonthe
linesofthefurtherwarningisappropriatepriortotheretirementofthejury.
(IV.42.9)Intheeventthatsuchanincidentdoesoccur,trialjudgesshouldhaveregardtothe
remarksofLordHopeatparas127and128inRvConnorsandMirza[2004]2WLR201and
considerthedesirabilityofpreparingastatementthatcouldbeusedinconnectionwithany
appealarisingfromtheincidenttotheCourtofAppealCriminalDivision.Membersofthe
CourtofAppealCriminalDivisionshouldalsoremindthemselvesofthepowertorequestthe
judgetofurnishthemwithanyinformationorassistanceunderrule22oftheCriminalAppeal
Rules1968(SI1968/1262)andsection87(4)oftheSupremeCourtAct1981.
2. Thejudgehasthediscretiontodischargeajurorwhenthenecessityarises.
677
Thesizeofthejury
shouldnotbereducedbelownine.
678
3. Necessitymayarisethroughillness,althoughanadjournmentofadayorsowillusually
accommodatetemporaryindisposition.InHambery
679
thetrialjudgedischargedajurorwhowas
commencingherholidayonthenextsittingday.
Footnotes
675
[2004]1AC1118,[2004]UKHL2
676
SeeChapter2IntroductoryWordsatCommencementofTrial
677
Seesection16JuriesAct1974whichassumesthepowerHambery[1977]QB924
678
Section16
679
Hambery[1977]QB924
383
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. Ifajurorhaspersonalknowledgeofthedefendant(s)whichshouldhavebeendisclosedandwould
haveresultedinaninvitationfromthejudgetostanddown,itmaybenecessarytodischargehim.
5. Misconductbyajurormaygiverisetonecessity.Jurorsarecustomarilyprovidedwithcomprehensive
warningsagainstdiscussingthecasewithothersandagainstseekinginformationaboutthecase
fromextraneoussources.Adisregardofthosewarningswillamounttomisconduct.
6. Thejudgewillneedtoconsiderineachcasewhether,asaresultoftheeventualityormisconduct,
itisnecessarytodischargethewholejury.Thiswillnotariseifdischargeoftheindividualjuror(s)is
causedbypersonalcommitment,indispositionorillness,butmayberequiredifthereisariskthat
informationimproperlyobtainedorpersonalknowledgehasbeensharedwithothermembersofthe
jury.
Investigation by the judge
7. Wherethejudgeacquiresnoticeofpossiblemisconductorirregularityamongjurors,hewillneedto
investigateit.Itisimportantnottopre-judgetheissue.Thejurymay,withappropriatedirections,beable
tocontinueeitherasoriginallyconstitutedorwithoutjurorswhohavebeendischargedinconsequence
oftheinquiry.Thetestiswhetherthejuryissubjectivelyorobjectivelybiased.Objectivebiasisthe
appearancetoafairmindedandinformedobserver,havingconsideredthefacts,thattherewasareal
possibilitythatthetribunalisbiased.
680
8. Iftheirregularityisexternalinorigin(e.g.overheardconversationbetweenajurorandamemberof
thepublicleadingtoasuspicionofimproperdiscussionofthecase),thejudgemaybeabletodecide
thematterwithouttheinvolvementoftherestofthejury.InRamzanandFarooq
681
ajurormade
unauthorisedtelephonecallstoherfamilyfromthehotelinwhichthejurywaslodgedovernight.The
followingmorningthetrialjudgeconductedaprivateinquiryofthejurorthroughthecourtclerk.Inthe
resultnoharmwasdonebuttheCourtfoundthatthejudgeshouldhavequestionedthejurorinopen
court.
9. Wherethesuspectedirregularityisinternalandaffectsthejuryasawholeitmaynotbeprudenttoisolate
oneormorejurorsfromtheothers.InOrgles
682
twomembersofthejuryreportedinformallytothejury
bailiffsthattherewasfrictioninthejuryroom.Thosetwojurorswerequestionedintheabsenceofthe
othersandtheRecorderafterwardsaddressedthewholejury.TheCourtofAppealconcludedthatit
wouldhavebeenmoreappropriatetohaveaskedthewholejurythroughtheirforemanwhetherthey
wereabletocontinueandgavegeneraladviceasfollows:
Before this court, it was submitted that the procedure adopted by the recorder was wrong so as to
amount to an irregularity. We agree. By way of preface, we have sympathy for him: the problem was
unexpected;itwasunusual(itisnotencompassedwithinthejointexperienceofthemembersofthis
court);therewasnoprecedenttoguidehim;andcounselcouldnotprovideanagreedsubmission.That
said,inthejudgmentofthiscourtanappropriateapproachtotheproblemisasfollows.
18: jury ManageMent
Footnotes
680
SandervUK[2001]31EHRR1003,[2000]CrimLR767;Androikov[2007]1WLR2679,[2008]1CrAppR21,[2007]UKHL37
681
[1995]CrimLR169
682
[1994]1WLR108
384
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(a) Eachmemberofaproperlyconstitutedjuryhastakenanindividualoathtoreachatrueverdict
accordingtotheevidence;orhasmadeanaffrmationtothelikeeffect.
(b) Circumstancesmaysubsequentlyarisethatraiseaninferencethatoneormoremembersofajury
maynotbeabletofulflthatoathoraffrmation.
(c) Normally such circumstances are external to the jury as a body. A juror becomes ill; a juror
recognises a key witness as an acquaintance; a jurors domestic circumstances alter so as to make
continuedmembershipofthejurydiffcultorimpossible;sofar,wegivefamiliar,inevitablyrecurring
circumstances. Less frequent, but regrettably not unfamiliar, is the improper approach to a juror,
alternativelyadiscussionbetweenajurorandastrangertothecaseaboutthemeritsofthecase,in
short,thatwhicheveryjuryisroutinelywarnedabout.
(d) Occasionally,asintheinstantcase,thecircumstancesgivingrisetothejuryproblemareinternal
tosuchasabody.Whereasthedutycommontoallitsmembersnormallybindsthe12strangerstoact
asabody,suchcannotalwaysoccur.Fromtimetotimetheremaybeoneormorejurymemberswho
cannot fulfl the duty, whether through individual characteristics or through interaction with fellow
jurymembers.
(e) Howeverthecircumstancesarise,itisthedutyofthetrialjudgetoinquireintoanddealwiththe
situationsoastoensurethatthereisafairtrial,tothatendexercisingathisdiscretionhiscommon
lawpowertodischargeindividualjurors(toalimitofthree:seesection16oftheJuriesAct1974),ora
wholejury:seeR.v.Hambery[1977]Q.B.924.
(f) Thequestionarisesastowhetherandinwhatcircumstancesthatdutyshouldbeexercisedbythe
trialjudgeintheabsenceofthejuryasabody.Astothis,frst,thereisnodoubtbutthatthejudges
discretionenableshimtotakethecoursebestsuitedtothecircumstances(seeReg.v.Richardson[1979]
1W.L.R.1316foranextremecourse)
683
andfrequentlyitisappropriatetocommenceandcontinue
theinquirywiththejurorconcernedseparatedfromthebodyofthejury.Suchacoursecannotreadily
be faulted if the circumstance giving rise to the inquiry is external to the jury as a body; indeed if
theproblemisanapproachtoajuror,alternativelysomeexternalinfuencingofajuror,onlysucha
courseisfeasible.Theinfection,actualorpotential,ofonejurormustbepreventedifpossiblefrom
spreadingtotherestofthejury,anditiscommonformtohavetheindividualjurorbroughtintoopen
courtwiththerestofthejuryabsentsothatthetrialjudgemaymakeaninquiryinthepresenceofthe
defendantandcounselwithoutjeopardisingthe[trial].Giventhattherewasthisfurtherirregularity,
wasitmaterialsoastoprovideafurtherjustifcationforquashingtheconviction?Weobservethatafter
thistrialproceededtherewasnoreasontothinkthatthisjurydidnotasabodyseektofulflitsduty.
Therewerenofurthercomplaintsandtherangeofverdictsareconsistentwithbeingtrueaccordingto
theevidence.[boldemphasisadded]
Time for refection
10. Sucheventualities,bytheirnature,occurunexpectedly.Itissensiblenottotakeprecipitateaction,
unlessthereisanemergency,andtoinvolvetheadvocatesinthedecisionmakingprocessassoonas
possible.Ifthesourceoftheproblemisbelievedtobeexternalitmaybenecessarytoisolatethejuror
concernedimmediatelyinthehopethatcontaminationbydiscussioncanbeavoided.Theadvocates
should,inanyevent,beconsultedastothecourseappropriatetotheexigencywhichhasarisen.
684
Footnotes
683
Dischargingajuror,whosehusbandhaddiedovernight,bytelephonewithoutinformingcounsel
684
See,forexampleBryan[2002]CrimLR240,[2001]EWCACrim2550at44
38S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
11. Onthedischargeofajurororjurorsitwouldbeprudentforthetrialjudgetowarnthemnotto
discussthecircumstanceswithanypersoninthecourtcentreinwhichtheyareengaged.Insome
circumstancesitmaybenecessarytodischargethemaltogetherfromcurrentjuryservice.In
Barraclough
685
thetrialjudgedischargedthejuryandgaveawarningthattheyshouldnotdiscuss
thematterwithanyoneelse.Anewjurywasempanelledthefollowingday.Inviewofthesizeof
thecourtcentreandtheexplicitwarninggiven,theCourtofAppealheldtherewasnoirregularity
threateningthesafetyoftheverdict.Ifthesameweretooccurinasmallercentrethecourtmight
havetodischargethejuryfromfurtherattendanceinthatsession.
Sources
Archbold4-253/262;BlackstoneD13.45/64
18: jury ManageMent
Footnotes
685
[2000]CrimLR324
38o
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(3) Conducting a View
1. Aviewofthelocusinquomayberequestedbyoneorbothoftheparties,usuallywhenitisargued
thatphotographsdonotgiveasuffcientimpressionofscaleandproportion,orwherethenature
ofterrainisrelevanttoissuesinthetrial.Ifaviewistobeheld,itmustbeheldbeforethejurys
retirement.
686
2. Arrangementsshouldbemadeinadvanceandallthoseattendingshouldknowtheitineraryand
theproceduretobeadopted.
687
Itisusefultoprepareinaproposedtimetablefortheuseofthe
participants.Thecourtshouldassembleatcourtasusual.Ataviewthecourthassimplymovedits
placeofsittingtemporarily.
3. Aviewshouldbeattendedbytheadvocates,thejudge,thejury,theirjurybailiffsandashorthand
writer.Thejurymustbeaccompaniedatalltimesbytheirjurybailiffs.Othertravelarrangementsare
atthediscretionofthejudge.
4. Allcommunicationsbetweenthejudgeand/ortheadvocatesandthejuryshouldberecorded.
5. Thedefendantmustbepermittedtoattendaviewifhewishesbutheisnotboundtoattend.
6. Itisnotusuallynecessarytoreceiveevidenceataviewbutifevidenceistakenitshouldbewithin
earshotofthejudge,juryandtheadvocates,andrecorded.Oneorbothofthepartiesmaywishto
pointoutspecifcfeatures.Agreementcanusuallybereachedbythepartiesthatapoliceoffcerwho
hasnoimmediateconnectionwiththecasecanperformthefunctionofpointingoutthosefeatures
whichcan,ifpracticable,beincludedinthewrittenitinerary.Otherwiseeachsideshouldnominate
anadvocatetodoso.Whilefeaturescanbeidentifed,furthercommentuponthemattheviewis
undesirable.
7. Thejurymayhavequestionsattheview.Ifso,theycanbeaskedtomakeanoteoftheirquestions
andthenotehandedtothejudge.Thejudgewillconsiderthequestionswiththepartiestoascertain
whetheranswerscanbeprovidedthereandthen.Ifso,thejurycanbeprovidedwithanagreed
answerorevidencecanbetaken.Ineithercasethecommunicationshouldberecorded.Iftheparties
requiretimetoconsidertoadducingfurtherevidenceonthesubjectortoreachagreement,thejury
maybetoldthatfurtherevidencewillbereceivedatcourtorawrittenagreementproduced.Itmay
bethatafeaturehasbeenidentifedattheviewwhichwillrequireafurtherplanorphotographs.
8. Attheendoftheviewthejuryshouldbeaccompaniedbytheirjurybailiffsbacktocourt.If,however,
nofurtherbusinessistobeconductedatcourtonthatday,thejurycanbereleasedupontheirreturn
tocourtuntilthenextsittingday.
Sources
Footnotes
686
Lawrence[1968]1WLR341;c.f.Nixon[1968]1WLR577wheretheviewwasheldafterretirementattherequestofthedefence
687
MvDPP[2009]EWHC752Admin
387
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(4) The Watson Direction
1. Atthecommencementofthetrialthejurywillusuallyhavebeenadvisedbythetrialjudgethatitwillbe
theirjointresponsibility,induecourse,tomakeanassessmentoftheevidencebutthattheyshoulddefer
judgmentuntilalltheevidencehasbeenheard.Ifthejuryhasreceivedamajorityverdictdirectionthey
willhavebeeninformedthatitisdesirable,ifpossible,forthejurytobeunanimousintheirdecisionbut,if
thatisnotpossible,thejudgecanacceptsuchamajorityverdictasthecircumstancesallow.Itmaynotbe
appropriatetogivethejuryanyfurtherdirectionaboutthedesirabilityofreachingaverdictbecausethe
majorityverdictdirectionwillhaveconcentratedthejurysmindinthatdirection.
2. Itisamatterforthetrialjudgewhethertosayanythingfurther.Ifanythingfurtherissaid,itisessential
thatnounduepressureisexertedonthejury.InWatson
688
LordLaneCJformulatedafurtherdirection
whichmightbegivenasfollows:
Eachofyouhastakenanoathtoreturnatrueverdictaccordingtotheevidence.Noonemustbefalseto
thatoath,butyouhaveadutynotonlyasindividualsbutalsocollectively.Thatisthestrengthofthejury
system.Eachofyoutakesintothejury-boxwithyouyourindividualexperienceandwisdom.Yourtaskis
topoolthatexperienceandwisdom.Youdothatbygivingyourviewsandlisteningtotheviewsofothers.
Theremustnecessarilybediscussion,argumentandgiveandtakewithinthescopeofyouroath.Thatis
thewayinwhichagreementisreached.If,unhappily[tenof]youcannotreachagreement,youmustsay
so.
3. DeparturefromthewordsusedbyLordLaneisdangerous.
689
18: jury ManageMent

Footnotes
688
[1988]QB690
689
Watson(supra),Atlan[2005]CrimLR63;Morgan[1997]CrimLR593;Herbert[2009]EWCACrim2518
388
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
chapter 19: verDict
Unanimous and Majority Verdicts

690

Introduction
When a majority verdict may be received
1. Subjecttotheapplicationofsection17JuriesAct1974,thejurymustreturnaunanimousverdict.
Section17enablesamajorityverdicttobereturnedafterthejuryhasbeendeliberatingforat
leasttwohours.Inpractice,theminimumperiodis2hoursand10minutes.Bysection17(4)the
trialjudge,beforeconsideringamajorityverdict,shouldallowsuchperiodfordeliberationasthe
natureandcomplexityofthecaserequires.Inlongandcomplex,andmulti-handed,casesitmay
appropriatenottoconsideramajorityverdictdirectionuntilthejuryhasbeendeliberatingforwell
overadayand,perhaps,longer.Itisgoodpractice(andgoodmanners)forthetrialjudgetoinvite
observationsfromtheadvocateswhenamajorityverdictdirectionisunderconsideration.
What majority?
2. Bysection17(1),ifthejurystillcomprises12members,themajoritymaybe11/1or10/2.Iftheyare
11,themajoritymaybe10/1.Iftheyare10,themajoritymaybe9/1.
Practice
3. TheConsolidatedCriminalPracticeDirectionIV.46setsouttheproceduretobefollowed:
(IV.46.1)Itisimportantthatallthosetryingindictableoffencesshouldsofaraspossibleadopt
auniformpracticewhencomplyingwithsection17oftheJuriesAct1974,bothindirectingthe
juryinsumming-upandalsoinreceivingtheverdictorgivingfurtherdirectionsafterretirement.
Sofarasthesumming-upisconcerned,itisinadvisableforthejudge,andindeedforadvocates,
toattemptanexplanationofthesectionforfearthatthejurywillbeconfused.Before the jury
retire, however, the judge should direct the jury in some such words as the following:
As you may know, the law permits me, in certain circumstances, to accept a verdict which
is not the verdict of you all. Those circumstances have not as yet arisen, so that when you
retire I must ask you to reach a verdict upon which each one of you is agreed. Should,
however, the time come when it is possible for me to accept a majority verdict, I will give
you a further direction.
(IV.46.2)Thereafterthepracticeshouldbeasfollows:Shouldthejuryreturnbeforetwohours
andtenminutessincethelastmemberofthejuryleftthejuryboxtogotothejuryroom(orsuch
longertimeasthejudgethinksreasonable)haselapsed(seesection17(4)),theyshouldbeasked:
(a)Haveyoureachedaverdictuponwhichyouareallagreed?PleaseanswerYesor
Footnotes
690
SeealsoChapter5(10)AgreementontheFactualBasisfortheVerdict
38
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
No;(b)(i)Ifunanimous,Whatisyourverdict?;(ii)Ifnotunanimous,thejuryshouldbesent
outagainforfurtherdeliberationwithafurtherdirectiontoarriveifpossibleatanunanimous
verdict.
(IV.46.3) Should the jury return (whether for the frst time or subsequently) or be sent
for after the two hours and ten minutes (or the longer period) has elapsed, questions (a)
and (b)(i) in paragraph IV.46.2 should be put to them and, if it appears that they are not
unanimous, they should be asked to retire once more and told that they should continue to
endeavour to reach an unanimous verdict but that, if they cannot, the judge will accept a
majority verdict as in section 17(1).
(IV.46.4)Whenthejuryfnallyreturntheyshouldbeasked:(a)Haveatleastten(ornineasthe
casemaybe)ofyouagreedonyourverdict?;(b)IfYes,Whatisyourverdict?Pleaseonly
answerGuiltyorNotGuilty;(c)(i)IfNotGuilty,accepttheverdictwithoutmoreado;(ii)If
Guilty,Isthattheverdictofyouallorbyamajority?;(d)IfGuiltybyamajority,Howmany
ofyouagreedtotheverdictandhowmanydissented?
(IV.46.5)Atwhateverstagethejuryreturn,beforequestion(a)isasked,thesenioroffcerofthe
courtpresentshallstateinopencourt,foreachperiodwhenthejurywasoutofcourtforthe
purposeofconsideringtheirverdict(s),thetimeatwhichthelastmemberofthejuryleftthejury
boxtogotothejuryroomandthetimeoftheirreturntothejuryboxandwilladditionallystate
inopencourtthetotalofsuchperiods.
(IV.46.6)Thereasonwhysection17(3)isconfnedtoamajorityverdictofguiltyandforthe
somewhatcomplicatedproceduresetoutinparagraphIV.46.3andparagraphIV.46.4isto
preventitbeingknownthataverdictofNotGuiltyisamajorityverdict.Ifthefnaldirectionin
paragraphIV.46.3continuestorequirethejurytoarrive,ifpossible,atanunanimousverdictand
theverdictisreceivedasinparagraphIV.46.4,itwillnotbeknownforcertainthattheacquittalis
notunanimous.
(IV.46.7)Wherethereareseveralcounts(oralternativeverdicts)lefttothejurytheabovepractice
will,ofcourse,needtobeadaptedtothecircumstances.Theprocedurewillhavetoberepeated
inrespectofeachcount(oralternativeverdict),theverdictbeingacceptedinthosecaseswhere
thejuryareunanimousandthefurtherdirectioninparagraphIV.46.3beinggivenincasesin
whichtheyarenotunanimous.Shouldthejuryintheendbeunabletoagreeonaverdictbythe
requiredmajority(i.e.iftheanswertothequestioninparagraphIV.46.4(a)beinthenegative)the
judgeinhisdiscretionwilleitheraskthemtodeliberatefurtherordischargethem.
(IV.46.8)Section17will,ofcourse,applyalsotoverdictsotherthanGuiltyorNotGuilty,e.g.
tospecialverdictsundertheCriminalProcedure(Insanity)Act1964,verdictsunderthatActasto
ftnesstobetried,andspecialverdictsonfndingsoffact.Accordinglyinsuchcasesthequestions
tojurorswillhavetobesuitablyadjusted.
Sources
Archbold:4-433/440;Blackstone:18.35/40
1: verdiCt
30
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
31
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
appenDix: 1
Chapter 15: Defendants Statements and Behaviour
(1) Lies
(i) FormerSpecimenDirection27
Itisalleged[admitted]thatthedefendantliedtothepolice[orX]insaying[that....],andyouare
entitledtoconsiderwhetherthissupportsthecaseagainsthim.Inthisregardyoushouldconsidertwo
questions:
1. (Iftheissuearises)Youmustdecidewhetherthedefendantdidinfactdeliberatelytell[these]lies.Ifyou
arenotsurehedid,ignorethismatter.Ifyouaresure,consider:
2. Whydidthedefendantlie?Themerefactthatadefendanttellsalieisnotinitselfevidenceofguilt.A
defendantmaylieformanyreasons,andtheymaypossiblybeinnocentonesinthesensethattheydo
notdenoteguilt,forexample,(addasappropriate)liestobolsteratruedefence,toprotectsomebody
else,toconcealsomedisgracefulconduct[otherthan][shortof]thecommissionoftheoffence,oroutof
panic,distressorconfusion.Inthiscasetheexplanationforhisliesis[....].
Ifyouthinkthatthereis,ormaybe,aninnocentexplanationforhisliesthenyoushouldtakenonoticeof
them.Itisonlyifyouaresurethathedidnotlieforaninnocentreasonthathisliescanberegardedbyyouas
evidence[goingtoproveguilt][supportingtheprosecutioncase].
appendix: 1
32
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
33
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
appenDix: 2
Chapter 15: Defendants Statements and Behaviour
(4) Defendants Failure to Mention Facts When Questioned or Charged
JSB Specimen Direction (2004) 40.1
Itisdesirabletodiscussanyproposeddirectionwithcounselbeforeclosingspeeches:
(a)toconsiderwhetheradirectionundersection34shouldbegivenatall;
(b)toidentifytheprecisefactorfactstowhichthedirectionshouldrelate;
(c)toidentifythepermissibleinferences;
(d)toconsiderthetermsofthedirection.
If,forwhateverreason,itisdecidedthatnosuchdirectionshouldbegiven,Direction44(A)shouldbegiven.
(RvMcGarry[1999]1CrAppR377);unless,havingdiscussedthematterwithcounsel,thejudgeconcludes
thatitwouldnotbeintheinterestsofjusticetodoso:RvScottThomas,unreported(CACD13May2002).
1. Beforehisinterview(s)thedefendantwascautioned.Hewasfrsttoldthatheneednotsay
anything.Itwasthereforehisrighttoremainsilent.However,hewasalsotoldthatitmightharmhis
defenceifhedidnotmentionwhenquestionedsomethingwhichhelaterreliedonincourt;and
thatanythinghedidsaymightbegiveninevidence.
2. Aspartofhisdefence,thedefendanthasreliedupon(herespecifythefactstowhichthisdirectionapplies).
But[theprosecutionsay][headmits]thathefailedtomentionthesefactswhenhewasinterviewed
abouttheoffence(s).[Ifyouaresurethatisso,this/This]failuremaycountagainsthim.Thisisbecause
youmaydrawtheconclusionfromhisfailurethathe[hadnoanswerthen/hadnoanswerthathethen
believedwouldstanduptoscrutiny/hassinceinventedhisaccount/hassincetailoredhisaccounttoft
theprosecutionscase/(hererefertoanyotherreasonableinferencescontendedfor)].Ifyoudodrawthat
conclusion,youmustnotconvicthimwhollyormainlyonthestrengthofit;butyoumaytakeitinto
accountassomeadditionalsupportfortheprosecutionscaseandwhendecidingwhetherhis[evidence/
case]aboutthesefactsistrue.
3. However,youmaydrawsuchaconclusionagainsthimonlyifyouthinkitisafairandproperconclusion,
andyouaresatisfedaboutthreethings:frst,thatwhenhewasinterviewedhecouldreasonablyhave
beenexpectedtomentionthefactsonwhichhenowrelies;second,thattheonlysensibleexplanation
forhisfailuretodosoisthathehadnoansweratthetimeornonethatwouldstanduptoscrutiny;third,
thatapartfromhisfailuretomentionthosefacts,theprosecutionscaseagainsthimissostrongthatit
clearlycallsforananswerbyhim.
4. (Add,ifappropriate:)Thedefenceinviteyounottodrawanyconclusionfromthedefendantssilence,on
thebasisofthefollowingevidence(heresetouttheevidence).Ifyou[acceptthisevidenceand]thinkthis
amountstoareasonwhyyoushouldnotdrawanyconclusionfromhissilence,donotdoso.Otherwise,
subjecttowhatIhavesaid,youmaydoso.
appendix: 2
34
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5. (Wherelegaladvicetoremainsilentisreliedupon,addthefollowingtoorinsteadofparagraph4as
appropriate:)Thedefendanthasgivenevidencethathedidnotanswerquestionsontheadviceofhis
solicitor/legalrepresentative.Ifyouaccepttheevidencethathewassoadvised,thisisobviouslyan
importantconsideration:butitdoesnotautomaticallypreventyoufromdrawinganyconclusionfrom
hissilence.Bearinmindthatapersongivenlegaladvicehasthechoicewhethertoacceptorreject
it;andthatthedefendantwaswarnedthatanyfailuretomentionfactswhichhereliedonathistrial
mightharmhisdefence.Takeintoaccountalso(heresetoutanycircumstancesrelevanttotheparticular
case,whichmayincludetheageofthedefendant,thenatureofand/orreasonsfortheadvicegiven,andthe
complexityorotherwiseofthefactsonwhichthedefendanthasreliedatthetrial).Havingdoneso,decide
whetherthedefendantcouldreasonablyhavebeenexpectedtomentionthefactsonwhichhenow
relies.If,forexample,youconsideredthathehadormayhavehadananswertogive,butgenuinelyand
reasonablyreliedonthelegaladvicetoremainsilent,youshouldnotdrawanyconclusionagainsthim.
Butif,forexample,youweresurethatthedefendantremainedsilentnotbecauseofthelegaladvicebut
becausehehadnoanswerornosatisfactoryanswertogive,andmerelylatchedontothelegaladvice
asaconvenientshieldbehindwhichtohide,youwouldbeentitledtodrawaconclusionagainsthim,
subjecttothedirectionIhavegivenyou.
3S
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
appenDix: 3
Chapter 16: Defences
(4) Insane and Non-Insane Automatism
JSB Former Specimen Direction 47 Automatism
If,becauseof[theconcussion][theanaesthesia]thedefendantsstateofmindwassuch
that,atthetimeofthe[actinquestion],hisabilitytoexercisevoluntarycontrolwastotally
destroyed,heisnotguiltyoftheoffence.Thedefencehasraisedthisissueforyoutoconsider,
butitisnotforthedefendanttoprovethatthatwashiscondition;itisfortheprosecutionto
makeyousurethatitwasnot.
Notes
1. See Attorney-Generals Reference (No 2 of 1992) 97 Cr App R 429, 434 where the LCJ said: .....
the defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control on the
defendants part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough. In this case the court decided
that reduced or imperfect awareness, described by an expert as driving without awareness is
incapable of founding a defence of automatism.
2. Malfunctioning of the mind caused by a disease cannot found a defence of non-insane automatism.
Temporary impairment of the mind, resulting from an external factor, may found the defence, e.g.
concussion from a blow, therapeutic anaesthesia but not self-induced by consumption of alcohol/or
drugs (see below): R v Sullivan 77 Cr App R 176.
3. The evidential burden is on the defence and it is for the judge to decide whether the medical
evidence supports a disease or an external factor. (If the former, the jury may require a direction as to
the defence of insanity).
4. The prosecution must disprove automatism.
5. Malfunctioning of the mind which does not amount in law to insanity or automatism and does not
cause total loss of control is not a defence. R v Isitt 67 Cr App R 44.
6. Automatism due to self-induced intoxication by alcohol and/or dangerous drugs:
(i) is not a defence to offences of basic intent, since the conduct of the defendant was reckless
and recklessness constituted the necessary mens rea;
(ii) may be raised where the offence is one of specifc intent.
7. Automatism not due to alcohol, but caused by the defendants action or inaction in relation to
drugs (e.g. failure by a diabetic to eat properly after insulin) may be a defence to offences of basic
intent unless the prosecution proves that the defendants conduct was reckless. For example, in assault
cases the prosecution must prove that the defendant realised that his failure was likely to make him
aggressive, unpredictable or uncontrolled: R v Bailey 77 Cr App R 76.
appendix: 3

Benchbook Criminal 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Benchbook Criminal 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benchbook Criminal 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CROWN COURT

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

4. The Evidence Relevant to the Issues Identifed

Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury

5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility

Extension of the Foresight Principle

Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

10: good CharaCter of the defendant

The gateways to admissibility

(i) Propensity to Commit Offences of the Kind Charged

11: Bad CharaCter of the defendant

When to give both directions?

Extension of the principle

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

The trial judges solution to the Mountford problem

Illustration alibi defence witness called on defendants behalf - alternative counts

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

Alcohol dependency syndrome

1o: defenCes 7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence 1o: defenCes

Voluntary intoxication of defendant

18: jury ManageMent

You might also like