Williams, R. v

At a joint criminal trial, the jury must be directed that an accused’s police interview is not evidence against a co-accused. The direction is vital where the interviews contain accusations about the roles of other defendants. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 76A, concerns the admission of a co-accused’s confession and does not dispense with a direction controlling the use of interview material already before the jury. A conviction is unsafe where there is a real possibility that the jury used accusatory interview content, which was not evidence against the appellant, to corroborate prosecution evidence against him.

The appellant was convicted at Southampton Crown Court of assault by beating and affray. His two co-defendants, who faced affray charges, were acquitted.

None of the defendants gave evidence. Each had made a police interview containing an account of the incident and allegations concerning the others. During discussion before the summing-up, counsel referred to section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The judge subsequently gave no direction on the use of one defendant’s interview against another.

The appeal concerned whether that omission rendered the appellant’s convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The convictions for assault by beating and affray were unsafe and were quashed.

2. In a trial of several defendants, where one defendant’s police interview contains allegations against another, it is vital to direct the jury that those allegations are not evidence against that other defendant. The ordinary explanation is that the material is hearsay: the co-defendant did not make the statement and had no opportunity to challenge it.

3. The judge’s direction on assessing the truthfulness of each defendant’s own interview did not meet that need. It was suitable for a single-defendant trial, but did not prevent the jury from using one defendant’s accusations as corroboration against another.

4. Section 76A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was of doubtful application. It concerns the admissibility, for a co-accused, of a confession which would otherwise not be admitted. The interviews were already admissible. The issue was the restricted use that the jury could make of their contents. Although counsel may ordinarily rely on favourable aspects of a co-defendant’s interview, that did not remove the need for the customary protective direction.

5. The appellant’s co-defendant had implicated him in interview, broadly supporting the evidence of that co-defendant’s wife. The jury may have used that interview as corroboration. As the court could not exclude that real possibility, it could not regard the verdicts as safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed both convictions.

• Crown Court at Southampton: On 3 February 2006, convicted the appellant of assault by beating and affray and imposed a community punishment order and prosecution costs.