Williams, R v

Whether a person must be cautioned under Code C depends on objective reasonable grounds for suspecting that person of an offence. It does not depend solely on the questioning officer’s subjective view.

Where serious Code C breaches result from an uncautioned interview of a suspect, the court may conclude that evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A conviction nevertheless remains safe where the appellate court is sure that the inadmissible evidence made no material difference to the verdict.

The appellant was convicted at Inner London Crown Court of wounding with intent, aggravated burglary, and possessing a firearm while committing an offence. The prosecution relied in part on an account he allegedly gave to a police officer while he was being treated in hospital for serious injuries.

He appealed against conviction, principally contending that the account should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 because he should have been cautioned under Code C. He also challenged aspects of the judge’s summing up concerning that account, telephone evidence, and a pistol grip plate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge wrongly admitted the evidence of the hospital conversation, but the court was sure that its exclusion would not have affected the verdict.

2. Code C:10.1 required an objective assessment of whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant. The judge erred by deciding the issue solely by reference to DC Chinn’s subjective belief that he was interviewing a victim. The information then held by the police, particularly the link between the appellant’s missing trainer and the matching trainer at the other crime scene, gave objectively reasonable grounds to suspect his involvement. He should therefore have been cautioned before being questioned.

3. The failure to caution also produced breaches of the recording requirements in Code C. The judge’s exercise of discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was consequently flawed. The breaches were sufficiently serious that DC Chinn’s evidence ought to have been excluded. The appellant’s injuries and sedation did not independently make the evidence inadmissible, although they bore on the reliability of his answers.

4. The jury directions left a real possibility that the jury treated the hospital account as deliberate lies without adequately linking that issue to the appellant’s condition and the procedural failures. However, the appellant had made other important and damaging changes to his account. The prosecution case was also very strong, supported by CCTV footage, the complainant’s evidence, the appellant’s hat at the flat, and the appellant’s possession of a gun when leaving the building.

5. There was no material deficiency in the directions on the telephone evidence or the pistol grip plate. Neither ground affected the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2012] EWCA Crim 264, dismissed the appeal against conviction. Although the hospital conversation should have been excluded, the convictions were safe.
• Inner London Crown Court: Following a jury trial before Her Honour Judge Lees, the appellant was convicted on 20 June 2011 of wounding with intent, aggravated burglary, and possessing a firearm while committing an offence. On 30 September 2011, he received concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection.