Lambert, R. v

An appellate court should assess alleged disclosure failures, evidential irregularities and improper questioning in the context of the trial as a whole. An error does not automatically render a conviction unsafe or require the jury’s discharge. The question is whether the verdict’s safety has been jeopardised or trial fairness has been prejudiced beyond what an appropriate direction can cure.

Evidence containing apparent inconsistencies may remain for the jury’s assessment where the defence has the material and a fair opportunity to challenge it. A severe sentence for prison mutiny may be justified where the disturbance was exceptionally grave and the offender’s role was materially aggravated by planning, leadership or associated violence.

Following a planned and exceptionally destructive mutiny at HM Prison Lincoln, a jury before His Honour Judge Heath convicted Alan Brown of prison mutiny, unlawful wounding and theft. John Ritchie Lambert and Lee James McGrath were each convicted of prison mutiny, and McGrath was also convicted on a further count.

Brown appealed against conviction, alleging inadequate disclosure concerning a prosecution witness, later events affecting that witness’s evidence, unfair admission of another witness’s evidence, and improper cross-examination about recent alleged misconduct. Brown, Lambert and McGrath also challenged their sentences for the mutiny. The central issues were whether any irregularity made Brown’s conviction unsafe and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. Brown’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. The unused-material schedule gave adequate notice that details of Underhill’s conviction for perverting the course of justice were available for inspection. The prosecution was not required to draw the material to the defence’s attention more specifically. In any event, the detail would not probably have affected the jury’s assessment of Underhill’s specific evidence against Brown.

2. The later exclusion of Underhill’s evidence in other trials did not undermine Brown’s conviction. That exclusion followed unfairness caused by a further police interview, which deprived later defendants of a potentially effective cross-examination. It was not a finding that Underhill had lied. Nothing arising after Brown’s trial cast doubt on the part of Underhill’s evidence concerning Brown.

3. The admission of Bullivant’s evidence was neither an abuse of process nor unfair under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Apparent conflict with medical records went to weight. The defence had the relevant material, cross-examined Bullivant, and was able to examine the prison doctor. Brown’s acquittal on the assault count also demonstrated no prejudice from the order in which the evidence was called.

4. The prosecutor should have raised the proposed cross-examination about recent alleged misconduct with the judge in advance. Nonetheless, an error or omission in the conduct of a trial does not itself vitiate the trial. The decisive question is whether, viewed as a whole, the verdict’s safety is jeopardised or trial fairness is prejudiced so as to require discharge of the jury or quashing of the verdict. The judge’s direction to disregard the unproved allegation cured any potential prejudice.

5. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but all sentence appeals were dismissed. A nine-year starting point was justified for the gravest forms of this exceptionally serious prison mutiny. The statutory maximum for the mutiny count did not prevent that sentence, particularly where other offences also carried maximum penalties. Brown’s leadership and violence, and McGrath’s role in planning the mutiny and the attack on the officer, justified nine years. Lambert’s seven-year sentence, although severe, was not one with which the court should interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Brown’s appeal against conviction was dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted to Brown, Lambert and McGrath, but each sentence appeal was dismissed.
• Crown Court: Following a jury trial before His Honour Judge Heath, Brown, Lambert and McGrath were convicted of offences arising from the prison mutiny and sentenced.