Starmer v R

A good-character direction need not reproduce a specimen direction word for word. It is sufficient if, read as a whole, it properly directs the jury to take good character into account both when assessing credibility and when considering the likelihood of the alleged conduct.

A Brown-type unanimity direction is not required where a count alleges a single course of conduct. It is required only where a single count alleges two or more different ways of committing the same offence. In any event, a conviction remains safe where the verdicts make clear that the jury convicted on allegations supported by independent evidence.

The applicant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of sexual activity with a child and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The jury acquitted him of the other alleged sexual offences involving the same complainant.

His applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal conviction had been refused by a single judge. Before the Court of Appeal he pursued two grounds: that the good-character direction was defective, and that the jury should have received a unanimity direction concerning the several acts alleged in the count of conviction. The central issue was whether either matter rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The applications were refused. The court considered the merits of the proposed appeal before deciding whether to extend time. It concluded that the appeal against conviction was bound to fail.

2. The good-character direction was adequate. Although it used the word “may” rather than the wording of the Judicial Studies Board specimen direction, it correctly identified both relevant uses of good character: credibility and the likelihood of acting as alleged. A specimen direction is not a formula that must be repeated verbatim. The direction, read as a whole, properly directed the jury, notwithstanding that credibility was central to the case.

3. The count validly alleged one course of conduct. The acts in the bedroom and on the stairs formed a single incident and could properly be included in one count.

4. The court rejected the proposed reliance on R v Brown 79 Cr. App. R. 115. A Brown-type direction is seldom required and does not arise where the allegation is a course of conduct, as confirmed by R v Young 97 Cr. App. R. 280 and R v Warwick [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 492. It is required only where a single count alleges two or more different ways of committing the same offence.

5. Further, even if such a direction had been required, the verdict was safe. The jury acquitted where the complainant’s account lacked support, but convicted on the count for which her boyfriend supported the bedroom allegations. The only proper inference was that the jury convicted on the supported allegations.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2010] EWCA Crim 1, refused the applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal conviction.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: The applicant was convicted by a jury of sexual activity with a child and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.