Greenwood, R. v

In a criminal jury trial, a summing-up must identify significant conflicts or discrepancies in the evidence and explain their logical consequences where they bear on a defendant’s case. General directions that the jury are the judges of fact do not cure an omission that leaves such evidence unexplained. Where the omitted discrepancies materially support the defence account, the appellate court may be unable to regard the resulting convictions as safe.

The appellant was tried at Norwich Crown Court on allegations arising from two incidents at the home of Carl Taylor. He was acquitted of assault by beating, and the trial judge directed an acquittal on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The jury convicted him of unlawful wounding of Taylor and assault on Stuart Webb.

He appealed against the two convictions. His complaint was that the Recorder’s summing-up failed to identify important inconsistencies between Taylor’s and Webb’s accounts. Those inconsistencies were capable of supporting the appellant’s evidence that a large man, rather than he, had attacked Taylor. The central issue was whether the omission rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the convictions for unlawful wounding and assault, and declined to order a retrial.

2. A trial judge must draw the jury’s attention to significant conflicts and discrepancies in the evidence, and explain their logical consequences where appropriate. The Recorder had fairly summarised the main evidence and correctly directed the jury on the law. He had also put the appellant’s account that he had sought to restrain a large man attacking Taylor.

3. However, the Recorder omitted significant discrepancies between Taylor’s and Webb’s evidence. In particular, Webb described Taylor as being attacked by a very tall man, whereas Taylor said that only the appellant had attacked him. Taylor’s assertion that he kept the appellant in sight throughout was also inconsistent with the prosecution case that the appellant assaulted Webb in a bedroom.

4. Those conflicts were capable of supporting the appellant’s account. General directions that the jury were the judges of fact did not remove the need to identify and explain them. The court therefore could not regard the convictions as safe.

5. Although the Crown sought a retrial, the court did not direct one. The appellant had already spent the equivalent of about ten months in custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal in [2009] EWCA Crim 549, quashed the convictions for unlawful wounding and assault, and did not direct a retrial.
• Norwich Crown Court: The appellant was convicted by a jury on 26 September 2008 of unlawful wounding and assault. He had been acquitted of assault by beating, and the judge had directed an acquittal on the charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.