Goring v Regina

On a submission of no case to answer, the judge must assess the prosecution evidence as a whole. In a circumstantial case, the question is whether a properly directed jury could, on the evidence accepted at its highest and favourable inferences reasonably drawn, convict beyond reasonable doubt and reject realistic innocent explanations. The judge must not choose between inferences properly open to the jury.

Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, including evidence from material witnesses that may not fit the Crown’s inferential case, do not by themselves require withdrawal of the case. Their weight and reliability are ordinarily for the jury. A summing up remains safe where it fairly identifies the competing evidence and submissions, even if it does not rehearse every evidential detail.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of murder, possession of an offensive weapon and affray. The prosecution alleged that, after another man had stabbed the deceased in the neck, the appellant used a knife to inflict a fatal abdominal wound during a later confrontation captured on CCTV.

He appealed against his convictions for murder and possession of an offensive weapon. He contended that there was no case to answer because witnesses said that the deceased was already clutching his stomach before the later confrontation. He also challenged the judge’s treatment of the evidence in the summing up. The central issue was whether the whole of the evidence was capable of supporting the inference that the appellant inflicted the abdominal wound.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was a case for the appellant to answer on both murder and possession of an offensive weapon, and the summing up did not render the convictions unsafe.

2. The court applied the conventional test in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039. In a circumstantial case, the judge does not decide between competing inferences or whether every hypothesis consistent with innocence is reasonably open. The question is whether a properly directed jury could, on the prosecution evidence and favourable inferences reasonably open to it, find guilt beyond reasonable doubt and reject competing hypotheses as unreasonable.

3. The prosecution was required to call material witnesses with direct evidence despite inconsistencies between their accounts. Taking the prosecution case at its highest did not permit selective reliance on favourable evidence. The evidence had to be assessed as a whole, while credibility, reliability and the significance of inconsistencies remained for the jury.

4. The trial judge had not fully reflected one possible import of a steward’s evidence that the deceased was already clutching his stomach. That did not alter the appellate question. CCTV evidence, expert interpretation, the appellant’s possession of an object the jury could find was a knife shortly before the encounter, the apparent thrust towards the deceased’s abdomen, and the surrounding evidence were capable of supporting guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The contrary witness evidence did not undermine that conclusion as a matter of law.

5. The judge correctly distinguished what the CCTV directly showed from matters requiring expert interpretation. His directions on expert and circumstantial evidence, and his fair presentation of the defence case about the doormen’s evidence, were sufficient. The verdicts were therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant’s conviction appeal was dismissed in [2011] EWCA Crim 2. A differently constituted Court of Appeal had previously reduced his minimum term from 21 years to 18 years, less time on remand.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: Before Beatson J and a jury, the appellant was convicted of murder, possession of an offensive weapon and affray.