Roberts, R v

For joinder under rule 9 of the Indictments Rules 1971, charges need not concern identical facts or a lesser included offence. They may be founded on the same facts where their factual connection is sufficiently close, including through coincidence of time and place. The validity of joinder is assessed when the indictment is drawn. It does not depend on a defendant’s later account of separate acquisition or possession. Joinder must also be just and convenient for a single trial.

The appellant was convicted at Lincoln Crown Court of possessing Class A and Class C drugs with intent to supply, and of two offences of possessing a firearm while prohibited under section 21(1) of the Firearms Act 1968. He received a total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal had already allowed his sentence appeal and reduced the sentence. His conviction appeal concerned whether the drug counts and firearm counts were properly joined in one indictment after the items were found during a search of his home. The central issue was whether the counts were founded on the same facts within rule 9 of the Indictments Rules 1971.

1. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The four counts were properly joined and it was just and convenient for them to be tried together.

2. Section 4 of the Indictments Act 1915 permits joinder subject to the applicable rules. Rule 9 of the Indictments Rules 1971, now replicated in rule 14.2(c) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, permits joinder where charges are founded on the same facts or form part of a series of offences of the same or similar character.

3. The expression “founded on the same facts” does not require identical facts, a lesser included offence, or proof that the minimum facts of one offence establish the other. R v Barrell and Wilson (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 250 showed that the relevant connection is a common factual origin. R v Cox [2001] EWCA Crim 728 was a helpful exposition for section 40(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, although that provision also refers to common evidence and its test is therefore not identical to rule 9.

4. Here the drugs and firearms were found at the same time in the same premises. The counts all alleged continuing illicit possession of prohibited items. That temporal and locational coincidence provided the required factual connection, analogous to the virtually contemporaneous situation discussed in R v Bird.

5. The propriety of joinder had to be assessed when the indictment was drawn. It could not depend on the appellant’s later defence that other persons had placed the various items in the premises on separate occasions. There was no contention that a joint trial was unjust or inconvenient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In R v Patrice Roberts, [2008] EWCA Crim 1304, dismissed the appeal against conviction. It had previously allowed the appeal against sentence and reduced the total sentence.

• Crown Court at Lincoln On 13 December 2006, convicted the appellant of two drug-possession offences with intent to supply and two prohibited-firearm-possession offences, and imposed a total sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.