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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
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
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contents & CheCklist
Appendix: 2
Chapter15:DefendantsStatementsandBehaviour
(4)DefendantsFailuretoMentionFactswhenQuestionedorCharged
JSBFormerSpecimenDirection40.1 393
Appendix: 3
Chapter16:Defences
(4)InsaneandNon-InsaneAutomatism
JSBFormerSpecimenDirection47 395
iv
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
v
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
vii
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
ix
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
x
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
1: struCture and Content of the suMMing up
4
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
1: struCture and Content of the suMMing up
o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
7
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
1: struCture and Content of the suMMing up
8
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
11
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sources
SeetheobservationsofThomasLJinLeslieNorman[2008]EWCACrim1810uponthedutiesofthecourtwhen
itbecomesapparentthatthedefendantisunft,andthecommentarybyProfessorOrmerodintheJSBOnline
(criminal)e-letterforOctoberandNovember2008.
Archbold4-166a/185;BlackstoneD12.2/15.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
13
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Ifthejurywishestoberemindedofanypartoftheevidence,whetherthejudgehasmentioneditinhis
summaryornot,thejuryneedonlysendhimarequestinawrittennoteandhewillcallthembacktocourt
forthepurpose.
Thenatureoftheevidencehasbeensuchastoexcitefeelingsofangerorsympathy.Whenitcomesto
makingjudgementsabouttheevidenceanddecidingupontheirverdictthejuryshouldputemotionaside
andembraceafair,carefulandreasonedapproachtotheevidence.
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
1o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
17
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
18
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
20
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
21
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
22
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
23
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
2S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
2o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
27
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
28
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
2
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
30
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
31
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
Footnotes
37
TheTimes,July201998
32
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
33
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
4: preliMinary direCtions of law
34
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
3S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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)
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
37
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
38
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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)
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
40
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
41
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
42
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
43
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
44
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
4S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
4o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
47
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.)
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
48
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
4
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
S0
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
Footnotes
63
[1987]84CrAppR117
64
[1990]90CrAppR409
65
[1996]CrimLR824
66
Green[1992]CrimLR292;Hyam[1997]CrimLR439
67
[1993]97CrAppR24
S2
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
SS
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Illustration Route to Verdict
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
So
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S7
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
;
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
Footnotes
76
E.g.Archbold18-32
77
Archbold18-7/14,18;BlackstoneA5.1
78
Asfootnote71
S8
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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

5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility

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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
o1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
o3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
o4
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
oS
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
Footnotes
109
SwindellandOsborne[1846]2C&K230,175ER95;Mohan[1967]2AC187(Itisnotessentialtoprovetheroleofeachdefendant
providedthathewaseitheraprincipalorasecondaryparty)
oo
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
Illustration Route to Verdict
Pleaseapplythefollowingquestionstothecaseofeachdefendantinturn.Answerthefrstquestion
andproceedasdirected.
Question 1
Didthedefendanttakepartwithhisco-accusedinanunlawfulassaultonVintendingtocausesomebodily
orrealisingthatsomebodilyinjurymaybecaused?
Admitted.Gotoquestion2
Question 2
DidV,inconsequenceofthejointassault,sufferreallyseriousinjury?
Admitted.Gotoquestion3
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
o7
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
Footnotes
110
IfoneofthedefendantsmayhaveinjuredVinamannerfundamentallydifferentfromthatcontemplatedbythejointenterprise,
e.g.bytakingahousebrickandstrikingVovertheheadwithit,afurtherstepwouldberequired.See(v)JointEnterprisebelow.
111
Maxwell[1978]1WLR1363,68CrAppR128;Rv.Bryce[2004]2CrAppR35,[2004]EWCACrim1231
o8
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
o
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
71
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
Illustration Route to Verdict
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
73
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
7S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Count3encompassesthedefendantsadmissionthatbyhisownacthecausedaseriousinjurywithintent
todoVreallyseriousbodilyharm.
Ihavepreparedanotewhichexplainsthesequenceinwhichyoushouldconsiderthesequestionsbefore
arrivingatyourverdict.Letusreadittogether.
Illustration Route to Verdict
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
77
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
7
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
81
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
82
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
83
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
84
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
8S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
8o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
87
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
88
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
8
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
0
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
2
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
4
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
5: the proseCution Case and prinCiples of CriMinal liaBility
o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
7
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thejuryshouldnotthinkthatthisrefectsinanywayonthedefendantorhiscase.
192
ThejurymaybeinformedthatanABEinterviewistostandasthewitnessevidenceinchief.Forthat
reasonitisimportanttopaythesamecloseattentionasifthewitnesshadbeenpresentincourttogive
theevidence.ItisnotlikeaphotographoraCCTVflmoftheincidentwhichcanbeconsultedagainlater.
Footnotes
192
BrownandGrantat18and19
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury

.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
101
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
103
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
10S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
107
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
10
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
110
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
111
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
217
CodeC3.2
218
CodeC3.2(d)and3.12
219
Forbes[2001]1AC473,[2000]UKHL66at20
220
Jamel[1993]CrimLR52
112
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
Archbold14-1/42;BlackstoneF18.2/26
Footnotes
221
Drake[1996]CrimLR109
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
113
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
222
ThephotographingofsuspectsandtheretentionofphotographsisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,
sections64Aand54A,asamended,andCodeD,paragraphs3.31/33and5.1/11
223
[2003]1CrAppR321,[2002]EWCACrim2373
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
7: identifiCation evidenCe
114
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
11S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
11o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
117
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
118
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................

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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
11
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
120
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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....
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
121
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
122
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
123
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
124
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
12S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
IfyouhaveanyrationaldoubtaboutthecorrectnessofDrAsopinion,baseduponaconsiderationofthe
expertevidenceanduponyourownassessmentoftheseimagesthenyoumustfndthedefendantnotguilty.
However,youarenotexpectedtomakethatjudgmentinisolationfromalltheotherevidenceinthecase.I
willremindyouinamomentoftheevidencewhichiscapableofsupportingDrAsconclusionalthough,asI
shallemphasise,thejudgmentwhetheritdoesprovidesupportisforyoutomake.
Sources
Archbold14-45/51;BlackstoneF18.2
7: identifiCation evidenCe
12o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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;
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
127
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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,
7: identifiCation evidenCe
128
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
12
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
244
Seepreviousfootnote
130
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Footnotes
245
Thetakingoffngerprintsandothernon-intimateskinsamplesisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,section
63,andCodeDparagraphs6.5/6
246
[2003]1CrAppR12,[2002]EWCACrim1903
247
[2008]2CrAppR19,[2008]EWCACrim975
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.

judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010

131
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
7: identifiCation evidenCe
132
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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....
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
133
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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:
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
250
63
251
[2008]2CrAppR20,[2008]EWCACrim970
252
16
134
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
13S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
254
[2003]1CrAppR21(See(2)IdentifcationbyCCTVandOtherVisualImages)
255
[1999]CrimLR281
13o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thesecondareaofconcernistheuseofexpertevidencebasedsolelyuponauditoryanalysiswithout
recoursetoacousticanalysis.While,unlikethepracticeinNorthernIreland,thecourtsofEnglandand
Walesarepreparedtoreceivesuchevidence,itslimitationsweredescribedinODoherty(seeabove)
asbeingunabletodistinguishbetweenthevocalmechanismsofvoices.Itislikelytobethesubject
ofcriticismbyanexpertcalledonbehalfofthedefenceanddirectionswillneedtobetailoredtothe
evidenceinthecase.
Sources
Archbold14-52/52c;BlackstoneF18.30
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
137
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
(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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
Footnotes
256
ThetakingofbodysamplesisgovernedbythePoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct1984,sections62-63A,asamended,andby
CodeDparagraph6
138
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
13
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
7: identifiCation evidenCe
140
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
141
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
7: identifiCation evidenCe
142
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
143
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
144
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
14S
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
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.
7: identifiCation evidenCe
14o
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
147
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
14
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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.
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1S1
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
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
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
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)
judiCial studies Board MarCh 2010
1S3
Crown Court BenCh Book: direCting the jury
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................
7: IdenIiLcaIion Evidence
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
[2004]2CrAppR7,[2004]EWCACrim1
277
[2005]2CrAppR31,[2005]EWCACrim1092
278
[2008]EWCACrim971
279
[2006]1CrAppR5,[2005]EWCACrim1980
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
examineanydataproduceduponwhichtheevidenceisbasedandtoens