Wood, R. v

Evidence may be relevant even though it could not itself have influenced an accused at the time of earlier conduct. It is admissible if it independently supports the genuineness of the accused’s asserted belief or state of mind and is probative of the explanation offered for that conduct.

Where a trial judge wrongly excludes relevant evidence, a conviction remains safe only if, assuming a trial free from that legal error, the only reasonable and proper verdict would have been guilty. The appellate court must assess the excluded evidence in the context of the evidence that the jury did hear and the other evidence bearing on guilt.

The appellant and William Charlton were tried at Bradford Crown Court for the robbery and murder of Tarquin Turner. Both pleaded guilty to robbery and were convicted of murder. The appellant’s case was that Charlton alone used violence and that his own lies to the police were explained, in part, by fear of Charlton and Charlton’s family.

At trial, the judge refused to permit cross-examination of three prosecution witnesses about threats made by members of Charlton’s family while the appellant was in custody. The appellant contended that the evidence was relevant because it independently supported the genuineness of his fear. The sole issue on appeal was whether the ruling was wrong and, if so, whether the murder conviction was nevertheless safe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge erred in excluding the proposed cross-examination, but the conviction was safe.
2. The threats made by Charlton’s family after the appellant’s police interviews could not have directly influenced him, because he did not know of them while in custody. However, they were relevant. They were capable of independently supporting his account that he feared threats from Charlton’s family, and therefore were probative of his asserted reason for lying.
3. The court applied the safety test in R v Michael George Davis [2001] 1 Cr App R 8. It asked whether, on the assumption that the erroneous exclusion had not occurred, the only reasonable and proper verdict would still have been guilty.
4. That test was satisfied. The jury had heard evidence of threats made directly by Charlton to the appellant. Those threats were more capable of affecting the appellant than the later threats by his family. The appellant had also made clear in evidence that he feared both Charlton and his family.
5. The other evidence strongly supported guilt, including the circumstances of the joint robbery, the appellant’s conduct at the scene, the destruction of his clothes and shoes, and his changing lies. In particular, after he began to admit involvement, he falsely attributed to Charlton acts that he had committed himself. Those lies were directed to minimising his own role and could not be explained by fear of Charlton or his family. Even if the excluded evidence had been admitted, the only proper verdict was guilty.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—by judgment [2007] EWCA Crim 1556, dismissed the appeal because the wrongful exclusion of evidence did not render the murder conviction unsafe.
• Bradford Crown Court—the appellant was convicted of murder and robbery following a trial before His Honour Judge Stewart QC. He received life imprisonment for murder, with a minimum term of 13 years, and eight years’ imprisonment for robbery.