Cox, R (on the application of) v DPP

Where a prosecution proceeds on specimen charges forming part of an alleged course of dishonest conduct, the question remains whether the evidence proves each selected charge to the criminal standard. Admissions concerning the method, period and scale of the offending may provide compelling evidence that the defendant committed the specific transactions charged. A fact-finder need not eliminate every speculative or remote possibility suggested by the evidence. The issue is whether the evidence as a whole permits the fact-finder to be sure of guilt on each charge. The prosecution must give sufficient particulars of the alleged course of conduct to enable the defendant to understand the nature and gravity of the case and to allow a fair sentence.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of justices for the Thames Valley Commission Area. He faced 11 specimen charges of theft, each involving £39.99, arising from alleged false refunds entered on his employer’s tills between November 2003 and March 2004.

He admitted on several occasions that he had used false refunds to steal cash during the relevant period and accepted that the total stolen might have been between £1,500 and £2,700. He nevertheless argued that the prosecution had not proved the individual specimen charges, since some transactions might have been legitimate or carried out by another person using his PIN. The central issue was whether the admissions and other evidence enabled the justices to be sure that he had committed each of the 11 offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. The justices were entitled to convict on the 11 specimen charges.
2. The prosecution may proceed on specimen charges where it supplies the defence with a list of the alleged offences and informs the defendant of the circumstances, nature and gravity of the alleged course of conduct. This is necessary both for a fair trial and for sentencing.
3. The admissions were powerful evidence. They covered the dishonest method, the relevant period and a total substantially exceeding the value of the 11 selected charges. The justices were entitled to regard the admission of approximately £2,700 as indicating the frequency of the transactions.
4. There is no evidential principle requiring a fact-finder to give particular weight to mere speculative possibilities. Possible legitimate refunds or misuse of the claimant’s PIN had to be assessed against the whole evidential picture. The question was whether the evidence before the justices enabled them to be sure that the claimant’s criminal conduct caused the losses on each occasion charged.
5. The justices had hard evidence of deficiencies on the 11 dates and had carefully considered the competing possibilities. They were entitled to dismiss the unsupported possibilities as remote and to conclude that the claimant was guilty of each specimen offence.
6. It would also have been legitimate, in light of the admissions, to charge a single count alleging theft on diverse dates during the relevant period of cash totalling approximately £1,500 or £2,700. The order was legal aid taxation, with no further order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated by the justices for the Thames Valley Commission Area, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed.