Evans & Anor, R v

A summing-up is fair where, viewed as a whole, it adequately reminds the jury of the evidence and each defendant’s case. It need not contain a separate, consolidated account of one defence if its material points have been fairly put to the jury.

On sentence, an appellate court will respect the trial judge’s assessment of co-offenders’ respective roles and maturity. Brutal, unprovoked violence against a defenceless elderly victim, motivated by race, may justify a long deterrent sentence.

Following a jury trial at the Central Criminal Court, James Carney and Michael Evans were acquitted of murder but convicted of the manslaughter of an 80-year-old man. Each received ten years’ detention in a young offender institution.

Carney appealed against conviction, contending that the judge’s summing-up had unfairly failed to present his case that Evans alone had attacked the deceased. Both appellants appealed against sentence. They contended that their different personal circumstances and roles required differentiation, and that ten years was excessive.

1. Carney’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. The summing-up, read as a whole, was full, clear and fair. Although the judge did not gather every feature of Carney’s defence into a discrete section, he reminded the jury of all its material elements in the relevant parts of the summing-up. The judge fairly left the evidence of the pathologist, the eyewitnesses and the cyclist for the jury’s assessment.
2. The trial remained fair despite the late emergence of the cyclist’s evidence and Evans’s changed account. Carney had the opportunity to meet the case against him. The judge reminded the jury of the relevant inconsistencies, and the evidence that Carney participated in the attack was strong. His conviction was therefore safe.
3. Both appeals against sentence were dismissed. The sentencing judge had considered whether to distinguish between the appellants and declined to do so after assessing their respective roles and maturity during the trial. The Court of Appeal respected that assessment and found no basis to differentiate their sentences.
4. The comparison with R v Kime 1999 2 Cr. App. R (S) 3 did not assist. That case lacked the central racial element and involved a single assailant who lost his temper. Here, two appellants deliberately and without provocation attacked an elderly, frail and defenceless man because of his race. That aggravating feature justified the long sentences, particularly for deterrence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Carney’s appeal against conviction and both appellants’ sentence appeals were dismissed.
• Central Criminal Court: after a jury trial before His Honour Judge Forrester, both appellants were acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. Each was sentenced to ten years’ detention in a young offender institution.