Dorling, R. v

A summing-up is assessed as a whole. The judge must fairly reflect the case for and against each defendant, but is not required to repeat every defence submission or make the defence speech. An apparent imbalance may properly reflect the different weight of evidence against co-defendants.

Directions on potentially unreliable witnesses, bad character, forensic absence and a defendant’s silence must be read in their full context. A conviction is not unsafe where the essential defence case and the need for caution were adequately put, and alleged omissions neither created unfairness nor materially affected a strong case.

The applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of murder following the fatal stabbing of Aaron Chapman. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years, less time spent on remand.

The prosecution relied principally on alleged confessions to two witnesses, evidence from a co-accused placing the applicant near the scene, cell-site evidence, custody calls and his no-comment interview. The defence denied presence and confession, challenged the witnesses’ motives, and relied on the absence of scientific evidence.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed applications to appeal conviction and sentence. The central issue was whether the summing-up and the asserted police failure rendered the conviction arguably unsafe, and whether the minimum term was excessive.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused. The court held that none of the conviction grounds, separately or cumulatively, made the conviction arguably unsafe.

2. The summing-up had fairly put the essential defence responses to the prosecution allegations. The judge’s duty was to reflect the weight of the evidence for and against each defendant, not to reproduce the defence speech. Any difference in emphasis between defendants was explained by the greater volume and strength of evidence against the applicant.

3. The judge sufficiently directed the jury to approach the evidence of the alleged confession witnesses with caution and accurately placed their relationship with the applicant in the context of the defence challenge to their truthfulness. The uncharged allegation of rape was confined to its possible relevance to that relationship. The bad-character directions made clear that material other than specified violent convictions went only to credibility.

4. The judge had adequately reminded the jury of the absence of scientific evidence and of the prosecution’s reliance on confession evidence. His detailed direction on the applicant’s no-comment interview identified the relevant issues and stressed the need for care. No further direction was required.

5. The complaint that police had not obtained additional cell-site data invited speculation about evidence not before the jury. The judge correctly directed the jury to decide the case on the evidence adduced. Given the strength of the case, the asserted omission did not undermine safety.

6. The minimum term was not excessive. The sentencing judge was entitled to find an intention to kill from the number and nature of the injuries, although the original intention had been seriously to wound. The planned, paid attack, use of at least one and probably two knives, and presence of another man were aggravating features, with no mitigating feature identified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.

• Central Criminal Court: on 19 April 2006, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years, less 349 days spent on remand.

• Single judge: initially refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.