Williams, R v

Evidence capable of showing a defendant’s familiarity with firearms may be admitted where it is relevant to an important matter in issue. A judge must exclude it if its admission would be unfair, but a clear jury direction may avoid unfair prejudice.

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, hearsay from witnesses who refuse to testify through fear requires fear to be properly established and admission to be in the interests of justice. The reliability of the evidence, supporting circumstances, and the ability of the defence to challenge it are material. A qualified good-character direction may properly be given where a defendant has no convictions but the trial evidence discloses reprehensible conduct.

Four defendants renewed applications for leave to appeal against convictions following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Roberts. They had been convicted of offences arising from the possession and use of a pump-action shotgun, including the murder of Ezra Mills. Their cases turned principally on recorded conversations said to show familiarity with firearms, hearsay statements from two witnesses who refused to answer questions through fear, and the adequacy of the judge’s directions on good character, hearsay, alibi evidence and the burden of proof.

Marcel Mason also sought leave to appeal against his life sentence and minimum term of 25½ years, less time spent on remand. The central question was whether any asserted evidential or summing-up error rendered the convictions arguably unsafe, and whether Mason’s minimum term was manifestly excessive or unjustifiably disparate.

1. The court refused all renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction. None of the grounds disclosed an arguable basis for treating the verdicts as unsafe.

2. The recorded conversations involving Williams were properly admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. They were capable of supporting an inference that he was familiar with firearms, which was relevant to an important issue in the prosecution case. The trial judge’s warning left the meaning and weight of the conversations to the jury. Their admission was not unfair under section 101(3) of that Act or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

3. The qualified good-character direction given to Williams was proper. Where a defendant has no convictions but evidence at trial arguably reveals reprehensible conduct, the judge must decide whether to give a direction and, if so, whether to qualify it. Where there is doubt, a qualified direction will ordinarily be appropriate. The direction here was moderate and favourable to Williams.

4. The hearsay statements of Joshua Anderson and Everton Samuels were properly admitted under section 116(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Applying the guidance in Riat and others [2012] EWCA Crim. 1509, the court held that fear had been established to the criminal standard after the witnesses had been questioned about their refusal. The judge was entitled to find admission in the interests of justice under section 114(1). The statements had circumstantial support, did not stand alone, and could be tested against other evidence. The judge gave suitable warnings about their limitations.

5. The summing-up fairly distinguished between hearsay relied on by the prosecution and passages that assisted Saint or Smith. The jury received clear directions on the prosecution’s burden to prove every element so that they were sure, and on the need for great caution before drawing any inference from an absent witness. The judge was entitled to identify conflicts and possible errors in the evidence without endorsing either account.

6. Mason’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The difference between his minimum term and those imposed on the other defendants was justified by his greater age, significant previous convictions, offending while on licence, and conviction for involvement in both the murder and the earlier shooting. The minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction and refused Mason’s renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2012] EWCA Crim 2385.

• Central Criminal Court Following a trial before Judge Roberts, the defendants were convicted of the charged firearms and murder offences, save for the attempted-robbery count on which the relevant defendants were acquitted.