Josephs, R v

A Crown Court trial requires a valid indictment. Under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933, a bill becomes an indictment only when signed by the proper officer. An unsigned combined document is not saved merely because the accused suffered no prejudice.

The position differs where a judge, having been satisfied of the statutory requirements, directs that the bill be signed. In that event, the officer’s later signature is formal. A defect in the mode-of-trial process does not automatically nullify a committal. Its effect depends on the statutory scheme and whether the accused’s rights were materially affected.

The appellant had been committed for trial on one charge of possessing crack cocaine with intent to supply. A properly signed one-count indictment was issued. After a further similar charge, the Crown sought an expedited joint trial.

A Circuit Judge, sitting as a District Judge, committed the appellant on the second charge. The judge then purported to join the new allegation to the existing indictment. The appellant consented. The document containing both counts was never signed by the proper officer, although the appellant was later tried and convicted on both counts.

On appeal against conviction, the central issue was whether the unsigned combined document was an indictment, and whether procedural shortcomings in the committal process affected the result.

1. Appeal allowed. The appellant was tried on a document that was not an indictment. His convictions were therefore nullities and were set aside.

2. The court applied R v Clarke and McDaid [2008] UKHL 8. Sections 1 and 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 require the proper officer’s signature to convert a bill into an indictment. The statutory requirement could not be disregarded because the appellant had suffered no practical prejudice.

3. The proviso to section 2(1) provides a limited route by which a judge may direct the officer to sign a bill after being satisfied that the requirements have been met. On the approach in R v Jackson [1997] 2 Cr App R 497, a failure physically to add the signature after such a direction is formal. That route was unavailable here. The judge had neither amended the existing indictment nor directed the signing of a combined indictment.

4. The committal on the second allegation was valid. The mode-of-trial procedure had been flawed, but the appellant would inevitably have pleaded not guilty and been sent for trial on indictment. He was represented, had consented to the course taken, and suffered no conceivable prejudice. Not every procedural defect makes a committal a nullity.

5. The appropriate order was a venire de novo. The appellant was to be tried again on both counts. He remained in custody, subject to any bail application to Gloucester Crown Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—allowed the appeal in [2009] EWCA Crim 2800, set aside both convictions as nullities, and ordered a venire de novo.
• Crown Court—convicted the appellant in October 2007 on two counts of possession of crack cocaine with intent to supply, following trial on an unsigned two-count document.