Woolfall, R. v

A prosecution may advance its case that an accused played the leading role in a joint attack where there are proper grounds for that allegation; it is not impermissible speculation merely because the evidence is contested.

Cross-examination which tests an accused’s account, puts the prosecution case, and makes clear that the account is not accepted is proper. It does not become unfair where the accused could not reasonably have understood that the prosecution had accepted his version of events.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bolton of attempted murder following a sustained assault upon David Sneddon. He had also pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice by burning clothing and disposing of shoes after the attack. His co-defendant was acquitted of attempted murder.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction, following refusal by the single judge, the applicant contended that the prosecution’s case that he was the principal assailant was speculative. He also challenged the propriety of the prosecution cross-examination and alleged failures by his counsel and the trial judge.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court granted an extension of time, despite finding the explanation not wholly satisfactory, but held that there was no substance in the proposed appeal.
2. The Crown was plainly entitled to advance the case that the applicant had played the leading role in the attack. There were good grounds on which to put that allegation before the jury. The contention that the allegation was speculative therefore failed.
3. The prosecution cross-examination was proper throughout. It tested the applicant’s account, exposed its alleged weaknesses, and repeatedly made clear that the prosecution did not accept it. The questions suggesting that the applicant had accurately described the assault but reversed the assailants’ roles fairly put the prosecution case to him.
4. The applicant knew that the prosecution alleged that he had primarily carried out the assault. He could not reasonably have believed that the prosecution had changed position or accepted his account. Accordingly, the cross-examination had not placed him in a false position, and there was no basis for criticism of defence counsel’s failure to intervene or for a corrective direction from the trial judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused: [2009] EWCA Crim 1506 .
• Crown Court at Bolton: On 27 March 2008, the applicant was convicted of attempted murder.