Papworth & Anor v R

A police interview is a mixed statement only if it contains an admission of fact significant to an issue of guilt and capable of adding weight to the prosecution case. The question is determined at the close of all the evidence. The preserved rule on mixed statements reflects fairness to a defendant and simplicity for the jury. An admission of an ingredient of an offence will often be significant, but not invariably.

A trial judge need not repeat every defence argument or take the jury item by item through documentary schedules. A balanced summary which fairly identifies the competing case is sufficient.

Papworth & Anor v R concerned appeals against convictions in the Crown Court at Chester for two conspiracies to defraud. The prosecution alleged systematic overcharging for printing work and a dishonest failure to disclose that Papworth received money and financial benefits from Doyle.

The appellants challenged the judge’s summing up as insufficiently balanced and contended that their police interviews were mixed statements whose exculpatory contents were evidence of their truth. They also complained that the judge did not sufficiently rehearse arguments concerning the financial schedules. The central issue was whether the interviews contained admissions sufficiently significant to make them mixed statements and whether the convictions were safe.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the convictions were safe on strong evidence of deliberate overcharging and of undisclosed financial benefits.
2. Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 118 preserved the common-law rules governing confessions and mixed statements. Under Aziz [1996] 1 A.C.41, the exculpatory parts of a genuinely mixed statement are evidence of the truth of their contents.
3. Applying Garrod [1997] Crim.L.R.445, an interview is mixed only where it contains an admission of fact significant to an issue of guilt, in the sense that it is capable of adding weight to the prosecution case. Whether that threshold is met must be assessed at the close of all the evidence. The more the prosecution relies on incriminating parts, the more likely it is that explanations or excuses must also be treated as evidence.
4. The appellants’ admissions about bank accounts, visits to Jersey, their relationship, a car and financial dealings did not admit any ingredient of the offences. Individually and cumulatively, they were not significant admissions for the Garrod test. The interviews were therefore wholly exculpatory. No mixed-statement direction was required, and there was no basis for suggesting that the appellants would have given evidence if the direction had differed.
5. The judge was not required to repeat every defence point or to analyse each entry in the financial schedules. The jury had the schedules and had heard counsel’s submissions. The directions fairly identified the prosecution inference and the defence response. The summing up was even-handed, and the jury were entitled to convict on both alleged limbs of the conspiracies.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeals against conviction: [2007] EWCA Crim 3031.
• Crown Court at Chester — before HHJ Dutton and a jury, convicted both appellants on 6 June 2006 of two counts of conspiracy to defraud.