Stredder, R. v

A co-accused’s guilty plea may be admitted as evidence that the co-accused committed the offence, provided it does not foreclose a properly raised defence. The jury must be directed with precision about its limited evidential effect.

Where a guilty plea to robbery might lead the jury to infer a disputed fact, such as use of a knife, the judge must make clear that the plea proves neither that fact nor the appellant’s participation. A direction which conflates those issues may render the conviction unsafe if the appellate court cannot be sure that the jury would otherwise have convicted.

The appellant was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of two robberies and had pleaded guilty to three thefts. A co-accused, Maxwell, pleaded guilty to five robberies, including the two alleged against the appellant.

The prosecution alleged that a knife was used when the victims surrendered their telephones and that the appellant participated. The defence maintained that the appellant was an innocent bystander and that no knife was used. The appeal challenged the admission of Maxwell’s guilty pleas and, in substance, the adequacy of the Recorder’s directions on their effect.

1. The appeal was allowed. The court quashed the two robbery convictions because the summing-up contained a material misdirection, and ordered a retrial on counts 5 and 6.

2. Maxwell’s guilty pleas were admissible. They were evidence that Maxwell had committed robberies, but were not evidence that the appellant had committed an offence. Their admission was fair only if the jury were clearly directed that the pleas did not establish that a knife had been used.

3. The prosecution had presented the case on the basis that robbery by the appellant depended on use of a knife. Yet the Recorder’s directions treated robbery as no longer in issue because of Maxwell’s pleas, while directing the jury to decide whether a knife had been used. That conflated the distinct questions whether Maxwell had committed a robbery by aggression without a knife, whether a knife had been used, and whether the appellant had participated in a robbery involving a knife.

4. The resulting risk was that the jury would treat Maxwell’s admissions of robbery as powerful evidence that a knife was used. That inference would directly undermine the defence. Although there was strong evidence against the appellant, the court could not be sure that the jury would have convicted without the misdirection.

5. The court did not determine the renewed challenge to the admission of the appellant’s later theft pleas, although it expressed a provisional view that their admission caused no unfair prejudice. It held that Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 75, concerning retrial after acquittal, did not remove the court’s power under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 7 to direct a retrial after quashing a conviction. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the absence of a jury acquittal, the interests of justice required a retrial.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions on counts 5 and 6, and directed a retrial: [2010] EWCA Crim 482.
• Nottingham Crown Court On 12 November 2008, convicted the appellant of two robberies. On the following day, imposed concurrent sentences totalling seven years’ imprisonment. No lower-court citation was stated.