Pepper, R. v

A summing up must fairly present the essential defence case, but its adequacy depends on the trial as a whole. A concise review will not render a conviction unsafe where there is no material imbalance, the evidence and submissions remain fresh, and the jury have the relevant documents.

A judge may intervene to clarify evidence within the proper exercise of judicial discretion. Unfairness arises only where interventions prevent a witness giving a full account, amount to badgering or entering the arena, or otherwise compromise trial fairness.

In a conspiracy case based on circumstantial evidence, the jury must be sure that the acts relied upon furthered the charged conspiracy and that the defendant knowingly joined and assisted it.

Four defendants appealed following proceedings at Manchester Crown Court concerning a conspiracy to evade the prohibition on importing cocaine. Marcee Pepper and Alexander Range appealed against their convictions after trial. Christopher Range and Adam Hine, who had pleaded guilty, appealed against sentence.

Pepper challenged the fairness and adequacy of the summing up, judicial interventions during her evidence, and the absence of a specific direction on cash and lifestyle evidence. Alexander Range challenged the refusal of a submission of no case to answer, the jury directions concerning his travel and money transfers, and a later reminder given to the jury. Christopher Range and Hine challenged the length of their sentences.

The central issues were whether any deficiencies made the convictions unsafe and whether the sentencing judge had adopted excessive starting points.

1. The conviction appeals were dismissed. The trial judge's review of Pepper's defence was brief and could usefully have included more detail. However, it did not create a serious imbalance or unfairness. The evidence was recent, the trial was short, the supporting evidence was limited, and the jury had the documents discussed by Pepper.

2. The judge's interventions during Pepper's evidence were within the reasonable ambit of judicial discretion. They neither badgered her nor prevented her from giving her account. Applying the clear fairness principles illustrated by Peter Michel v The Queen [2009] UKPC 41, there was no basis to regard the trial as unfair.

3. No special lifestyle direction was required. The direction considered in R v Grant [1996] 1 Crim App R 73 concerned lifestyle evidence bearing on intent to supply. Here, Pepper's case was simply that she lacked knowledge of the cash, expenditure and drug activity. If accepted, that account required acquittal; if rejected, no separate innocent explanation remained. The omission could not affect conviction safety.

4. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence for Alexander Range's case to go to the jury. His travel with Hine, the presence of another conspirator at the destination, and substantial money transfers could properly be assessed with the wider evidence. Although aspects of the directions were vague and included inappropriate references to other trips, the summing up as a whole made clear that the jury had to be sure that he knowingly participated in the charged conspiracy.

5. The sentence appeals were allowed. The judge could infer that imported cocaine exceeded the quantity seized on the final trip. But the overall starting points were too high. The court distinguished the comparative seriousness of Attorney General's References Nos 117 and 118 of 2005 [2007] 1 Crim App R (S) 22. Christopher Range's sentence was reduced from 17 to 14 years' imprisonment. Hine's sentence was reduced from 14 to 11 years' imprisonment; his role exceeded that of a mere courier, but the differential was excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Dismissed Pepper's and Alexander Range's appeals against conviction. Allowed Christopher Range's and Hine's appeals against sentence, substituting terms of 14 years and 11 years respectively.
• Manchester Crown Court Pepper and Alexander Range were convicted after trial on 14 July 2009 and sentenced on 3 September 2009. Christopher Range and Hine pleaded guilty and were sentenced on 3 September 2009.