Czyzewski, R. v

Evidence of a defendant’s knowledge of an earlier seizure of cigarettes may be relevant to whether he was knowingly concerned in a later fraudulent evasion of duty. Its admissible use is confined to assisting the jury on knowledge; it is not proof that the defendant committed the later offence.

A summing-up misdirection will not render a conviction unsafe where the judge promptly and adequately corrects it by clearly identifying the limited purpose for which the evidence may be used.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court on 22 August 2002 of two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of duty on cigarettes. The charges concerned consignments of cigarettes concealed in plastic pipes and delivered to industrial premises in Birmingham.

After his arrest, officers found a fax addressed to the appellant which recorded that Customs and Excise had seized, about 12 months earlier, a trailer consigned to his company containing concealed cigarettes. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the fax was inadmissible and that the trial judge’s corrected direction about it was inadequate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe.
2. The fax was properly admitted because the decisive issue was whether the appellant knowingly participated in the July 2001 importation. His possession of a fax showing that Customs and Excise had seized an earlier consignment to his company containing concealed cigarettes was capable of assisting the jury on that issue. In the absence of an explanation, the jury could draw such inferences as were properly open concerning his knowledge in June 2000 and its bearing on his knowledge in July 2001.
3. The trial judge initially misdirected the jury about the significance of the fax. However, he corrected the error immediately after the adjournment. The corrected direction made clear that the evidence could be used to assist in deciding whether the appellant was knowingly concerned in the later importation, rather than as proof that he committed that offence.
4. Although the judge could have explained more fully the possible inferences available from the evidence, the correction sufficiently confined and identified its proper evidential use. There was therefore no basis for treating the conviction as unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2003] EWCA Crim 2305, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction.
• Birmingham Crown Court: On 22 August 2002, convicted the appellant on two counts of being knowingly concerned in fraudulently evading duty on cigarettes and imposed concurrent sentences of four years’ imprisonment.