Bradley, R. v

A trial judge may withdraw a criminal case from the jury only where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict. Fact-specific decisions on other applications of that principle add no useful guidance.

Credibility is ordinarily for the jury. A witness’s material lies may seriously weaken the prosecution case, but they do not necessarily establish that the witness’s entire account is false. Where there is other evidence capable of supporting guilt, the jury must assess the inconsistencies and decide whether the case is proved.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, against his conviction at Guildford Crown Court for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The complainant’s account of events before the alleged assault was shown in cross-examination to contain material falsehoods and inconsistencies.

The defence submitted at the close of the prosecution case that the case should be withdrawn from the jury. There was, however, evidence of blood and injuries which did not depend wholly on the complainant’s credibility. The appellant also gave an alternative account of how the injuries occurred. The central issues were whether there was a case to leave to the jury and whether the conviction was safe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was right to reject the submission that there was no case to answer, and the conviction was safe.

2. The governing principle derived from Galbraith was sufficient. A judge may withdraw a case only if no reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict. Decisions applying that principle to their own facts do not provide further guidance for a later no-case submission.

3. Credibility was for the jury, not the judge. The complainant had lied in a material respect about events leading to the assault, but, as Lucas showed, a witness may lie for reasons other than that the whole account is false. Material lies may make the prosecution case insufficient, but do not inevitably do so.

4. There was evidence independent of the complainant’s credibility, including blood in the bathroom and on the front door, and injuries at different locations. That evidence was capable of supporting the prosecution. Discrepancies in accounts of a short violent incident, and the significance of the complainant’s lies, were matters for the jury to resolve.

5. Although the no-case submission had to be assessed on the prosecution evidence at its close, the Court of Appeal could consider the appellant’s evidence when deciding whether the conviction was safe. The jury was entitled to reject his explanation and rely on evidence not wholly dependent on the complainant. The verdict was therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2009] EWCA Crim 2856, dismissed the appeal against conviction and upheld the conviction as safe.

• Guildford Crown Court: Convicted the appellant in July 2009 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and later sentenced him to 10 months’ imprisonment. No citation was stated.