Sammon v R.

Inadmissible and prejudicial material mistakenly shown to a jury does not automatically require the jury’s discharge or render a conviction unsafe. The decisive question is whether, viewed in the trial as a whole, there was a real risk that the material improperly influenced the jury or otherwise caused unfairness. That assessment depends on the material’s prejudicial effect, the judicial directions given and the other evidence.

Evidence concerning the distribution and use of firearms may be relevant to prove the nature and scope of a charged conspiracy. The need, content and strength of a warning about a potentially unreliable witness remain matters for the trial judge’s discretion, assessed in the circumstances of the case.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of conspiracies concerning the possession, importation and manufacture of converted firearms, and the possession of ammunition. He received concurrent sentences of up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

His appeal challenged, principally, the admission of television recordings said to provide the context for incriminating evidence from a witness. The recording first admitted proved not to be the programme viewed by the witness. The trial judge directed the jury to disregard it, refused to discharge the jury and later permitted a news broadcast to be played for the limited purpose of assessing the witness’s credibility.

The appeal also challenged evidence of firearms distribution, restrictions on cross-examination concerning Code C, the summing up, directions on supporting evidence, and the length of sentence.

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. The admission of the Manhunt recording was initially open to the judge because, on the facts then known, it provided relevant context for the disputed account of an incriminating conversation. The recording later proved irrelevant because the witness could not have watched it with the appellant. That error did not automatically require discharge of the jury.

2. Applying the approach stated in Lambert, McGrath and Brown [2006] EWCA Crim 827, the Court asked whether, in the trial as a whole, the inadmissible material created a real risk of improper influence or otherwise prejudiced fairness. Its contents were prejudicial, but the judge’s contemporaneous warnings, his direction to disregard reconstructions and unproved commentary, and the substantial live evidence meant that the verdicts remained safe. The later Granada news report was properly admitted for the limited purpose of enabling the jury to assess whether the witness might have viewed a relevant television broadcast.

3. The evidence concerning the recovery, distribution and criminal use of converted firearms was relevant and admissible. It assisted the jury to determine the nature and scope of the conspiracy alleged, notwithstanding the appellant’s concession that participation in the conspiracy would establish the principal count.

4. The proposed questioning of an officer about Code C did not concern a material issue. Code C protects suspects. The witness was willing to provide information, his vulnerability and reliability were fully explored in cross-examination, and there was no evidential basis for suggesting that officers had improperly induced his account.

5. The summing up fairly and clearly presented the defence. The judge gave appropriate cautionary directions about the evidence of McCulloch and Kinsley. In accordance with Makanjuola [1995] 2 Cr App R 469, the necessity and terms of a warning depended on the evidence, circumstances and issues. The supporting evidence identified for the jury was capable of assisting its assessment without usurping its fact-finding role.

6. Renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused. The appellant’s role as money man, source of supply and distributor justified a sentence greater than that imposed on Tyrer. The 30-year concurrent sentence was not arguably excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Sammon v R. [2011] EWCA Crim 1199, dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused renewed permission to appeal against sentence.
• Manchester Crown Court: Before His Honour Judge Steiger QC, the appellant was convicted on 19 January 2010 of the four firearm-related conspiracies and sentenced on 22 January 2010 to concurrent terms of up to 30 years’ imprisonment.