Stovell, R v

A technical failure to discharge a legal aid certificate after defence representatives withdraw does not itself require a conviction to be quashed. The decisive question is whether the accused could still receive, and did receive, a fair trial. That assessment is fact-sensitive and includes the stage of the proceedings, the issues already explored, the complexity of subsequent developments and the assistance provided by the judge.

Likewise, an improper or excessive prosecution speech after an accused becomes unrepresented does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess its actual effect on trial fairness and conviction safety.

The appellant was convicted at Blackfriars Crown Court of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour with intent to cause fear or provocation of violence, and of possessing a bladed article. The prosecution alleged that he had used racist abuse while threatening the complainant with a knife. He maintained that the object was a mobile telephone.

During the trial, his legal representatives withdrew because his intended evidence differed from the defence case previously advanced. The judge refused an adjournment for replacement representation. The appellant also challenged the refusal to recall witnesses to show them the telephone, and a lengthy further prosecution speech after he became unrepresented. The central issue was whether those matters rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted, but the court held that none of the complaints rendered either conviction unsafe. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
2. The judge was entitled to refuse an adjournment after the appellant's representatives withdrew. The case was straightforward, the prosecution witnesses had already been cross-examined on the central issues, no defence witnesses were anticipated, and the judge could fairly assist the unrepresented appellant and explain his case to the jury. The later addition of the bladed-article count and the jury's question about the telephone did not introduce unfair complexity.
3. The judge ought to have discharged the legal aid certificate. However, the technical failure did not itself invalidate the proceedings. R v Harris [1985] Crim LR 244 did not establish an automatic rule requiring a conviction to be quashed in those circumstances. The governing question was whether a fair trial remained possible and in fact occurred.
4. The refusal to recall witnesses so that they could be shown the mobile telephone caused no unfairness. The relevant witnesses had already denied that they could have mistaken such an object for a knife, and the jury had seen the telephone and could assess the possibility of mistake.
5. The prosecution's further speech was excessively long and should not have been made in this form. The court nevertheless held that such a speech did not inevitably require a conviction to be quashed. It distinguished R v Mondon 52 Cr App R 695, noting both the appellant's substantial earlier representation and changes in procedure and evidence. The court considered that, even on the older authorities, the conviction would not have been quashed. The evidence was strong and the trial remained fair.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2006] EWCA Crim 27, the court granted leave to appeal against conviction but dismissed the appeal. It refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Blackfriars Crown Court: On 20 May 2005, following trial before Judge Martineau, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment on the first count and nine months' imprisonment concurrently on the second count.