Codsi, R. v

In a robbery trial, the jury must be directed clearly by reference to the statutory ingredients and the accused’s state of mind. Where joint enterprise is alleged, the prosecution case must be identified with sufficient precision for the jury to determine whether it rests on agreement, encouragement, or later participation.

The judge must also relate the material evidence to those issues. A Lucas direction requires care to identify the alleged lies and distinguish them from parts of an interview capable of supporting the defence. Serious combined defects in directions and summing-up may render a conviction unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth of robbery after a jury found that he and another youth had obtained £2.20 from one of two brothers. He was acquitted on a separate count of attempted robbery concerning later demands for money and a mobile telephone.

The Crown alleged joint enterprise. The appellant’s case was that he had merely begged for money for cigarettes, while the other youth had become aggressive. The appeal challenged the summing-up as inadequate on robbery, joint enterprise and the evidence.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction for robbery was unsafe because the summing-up did not adequately identify the prosecution case, direct on the applicable law, or relate the material evidence to the real issues.

2. The judge should have directed the jury in the statutory language of section 8 of the Theft Act 1968. On the issues at trial, the direction needed to focus on whether the appellant intended dishonestly to appropriate property and on the alleged use of, or attempt to put the complainant in fear of, force. The abbreviated direction did not sufficiently assist the jury on the appellant’s state of mind.

3. The direction on joint enterprise was also inadequate. It did not make clear whether the Crown relied on a prior agreement, encouragement, or the appellant’s alleged later participation by accepting money after threats had been made. Nor did it identify that the money was handed to the appellant.

4. The evidence was not fairly or adequately summarised. The brothers’ evidence was capable of supporting the defence that the appellant was begging and that the other youth’s aggression created the trouble. The judge also gave a Lucas direction without identifying the alleged lies in interview or separating them from statements potentially consistent with the defence.

5. The Crown could not cure those defects by relying on the appellant’s receipt of the money. That fact had not been put to the jury in the summing-up, and the acquittal on the attempted-robbery count made the safety of the robbery conviction untenable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against conviction: [2009] EWCA Crim 1618.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: On 8 July 2008, the appellant was convicted by a jury of robbery and acquitted of attempted robbery. He received a community order.