Ascough, R. v

A conviction founded on recognition evidence will ordinarily remain a matter for the jury where the identifying witnesses knew the defendant and the alleged weaknesses concern the quality, duration or certainty of their observations. The trial judge should fairly identify those weaknesses in the summing-up.

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 139, a judge may permit a witness to be taken through an earlier statement to refresh memory if the statutory conditions are properly addressed. Practical limits on further enquiry into the making or verification of the statement do not make that ruling defective where the judge has identified the concern and conducted the necessary evaluative exercise.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of burglary and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The Crown case depended principally on recognition evidence from two neighbours, including Mr Middleton, who was illiterate and had difficulty remembering events at trial.

The trial judge permitted the Crown, under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to take Mr Middleton through his written statement. The judge also rejected a submission of no case to answer. The appellant challenged both rulings and contended that the cumulative weaknesses in the identification evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The alleged defects in the recognition evidence were classic issues for the jury. Both Mrs Sunderland and Mr Middleton knew the appellant. The differences between their accounts, the qualified language used in the 999 call, and the length of the observation were matters bearing on reliability, not grounds requiring withdrawal of the case from the jury.

2. The summing-up accurately drew the jury’s attention to the potentially important discrepancy between an observation lasting seconds and one said to have lasted minutes. That direction assisted, rather than prejudiced, the defence.

3. The trial judge was entitled to permit the Crown to take Mr Middleton through his statement under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He identified the difficulty created by Mr Middleton’s illiteracy and the question whether the statement had been verified. He properly considered whether further enquiry through the officers present when it was made would be worthwhile within the practical constraints of the trial. The statutory requirements were sufficiently addressed, and the ruling was not impugnable.

4. As each ground failed, the asserted cumulative effect could not render the conviction unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against conviction dismissed.
• Crown Court at Manchester: on 28 November 2013, the appellant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.