Serifi, R. v

A direction on lies or silence must be tailored to the evidence and to the defence case. A general warning is insufficient where the prosecution relies on identified lies or omissions. The judge should identify those matters, explain their possible innocent significance, and relate any explanation advanced by the defendant, including fear said to support a defence of duress.

A defective summing-up does not necessarily make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess the defects against the whole evidence and the practical strength of the defence. A recommendation of deportation should not be made without examining the effect on family members whose status depends upon the offender’s refugee status.

The appellant was convicted in March 2005 of conspiring to import class A drugs. He admitted handling packages containing heroin but relied on duress. He alleged that dangerous associates had threatened him and his family, compelling his involvement.

He appealed against conviction on grounds concerning disclosure, the admission of a peripheral document, and deficiencies in the directions on lies and silence. He also appealed against a sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and a recommendation of deportation.

The central issue was whether the defects in the summing-up rendered the convictions unsafe, given the appellant’s account of duress and the evidence of his repeated unaccompanied involvement in handling the packages.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The judge’s directions on lies and silence were defective. A general direction had been given, but it was not sufficiently connected to the particular lies and omissions on which the prosecution relied. The jury should have been told that the appellant might have lied to conceal the extent of his involvement without thereby disproving duress, and that he said fear explained his omissions at interview (paras [25]–[31]).

2. Those defects did not render the convictions unsafe. The evidence of the appellant’s participation was strong and substantially undisputed. His credibility was central to duress. There was no evidence that he was under an immediate threat while carrying out the observed acts, and he had not taken opportunities to seek protection. A clearer direction on the lies and omissions could only have damaged, rather than assisted, his case (paras [32]–[33]).

3. The late-admitted estate-agent’s document was peripheral and had no bearing on the safety of the verdict. The disclosure complaints likewise provided no basis for an appeal because no material was identified which might have undermined the prosecution or assisted the defence (paras [34]–[37]).

4. The appeal against sentence was allowed. A sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive for the appellant’s role. The appropriate sentence was 17 years’ imprisonment (paras [38]–[39]).

5. The recommendation of deportation was quashed. It had been made without examination of the position of the appellant’s family, whose status derived from his refugee status. In those circumstances, no recommendation should have been made (para [40]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appeal against sentence was allowed; the sentence was reduced from 20 to 17 years’ imprisonment and the recommendation of deportation was quashed.
• Trial court: The appellant was convicted in March 2005 of conspiracy to import class A drugs, sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, and made subject to a recommendation of deportation.