O, J and S, R v

An evidentiary ruling may also be a terminating ruling under sections 58–61 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where its practical effect is to end the prosecution. The separate statutory regime for qualifying evidentiary rulings does not restrict that wider jurisdiction.

A trial judge may reconsider an earlier ruling on admissibility when later information materially undermines the connection between critical witness evidence and the offence charged. An appellate court will not interfere where the resulting exclusion or direction to disregard the evidence was open to the judge and was neither wrong nor unreasonable.

The prosecution sought leave to appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 against rulings made at Reading Crown Court during a trial concerning a major burglary at Waddesdon Manor and alleged handling of stolen property.

The prosecution case depended on evidence from Margerrison. After the close of the prosecution case, corrected information showed that aspects of his account might instead relate to a different burglary at Madresfield Court. The judge directed that the jury should disregard the bulk of that evidence. The Crown contended that the ruling was inconsistent with earlier decisions that there was a case to answer and that the proceedings should not be stayed.

The central issues were whether the Crown had jurisdiction to appeal and whether the judge’s final admissibility ruling was erroneous.

1. The application was refused and acquittals were directed. The directions to disregard the identified parts of Margerrison’s evidence removed virtually all force from the essential evidence in the Crown’s case. The Crown could not properly continue without it.

2. The court had jurisdiction under sections 58–61 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Following R v Y [2008] EWCH Crim 10, a ruling about admissibility may also be a terminating ruling where it relates to an indictment and, if left undisturbed, effectively ends the prosecution. The separate regime for qualifying evidentiary rulings under sections 62–63 did not narrow the general appeal jurisdiction for trials on indictment.

3. The Crown had complied with the statutory and procedural requirements to notify its intended appeal immediately. In the exceptional sequence of events, the judge had allowed the Crown overnight and further time to assess the cumulative effect of the rulings. Its ensuing application was sufficiently immediate under section 58(4) and rules 67.2(1) and 67.5(1) of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005.

4. On the merits, the judge was entitled to reconsider his earlier rulings. Those rulings had been made before the significance of the corrected date of the Madresfield Court burglary had been properly assimilated. That information created a serious doubt whether the incriminating evidence related to the burglary charged. The judge was therefore entitled to direct the jury to disregard the bulk of it. No error, unreasonableness, or other basis for appellate intervention was shown.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal was refused, and the court directed acquittals.
• Crown Court at Reading — after initially finding a case to answer and declining to stay the indictment, the judge directed that the jury should disregard the bulk of Margerrison’s evidence following corrected information about another burglary.