JG & Ors, R v

On a Crown appeal under Criminal Justice Act 2003, a no-case ruling must be assessed by reference to the evidence at the close of the Crown case, rather than by comparison with an earlier ruling on dismissal. A ruling is vulnerable where it treats possible innocent explanations as conclusive despite a body of evidence capable of supporting a tenable inference of conspiracy.

In a drug-conspiracy case, the Crown need not identify precisely who supplied a courier, or when and where the supply occurred, if the evidence permits an inference that the courier obtained the drugs during the relevant visit. Evidence that others handled the package does not itself exculpate the defendants. Telephone activity, a later clandestine meeting and unexplained cash may be assessed cumulatively by the jury.

Seven defendants stood trial at Liverpool Crown Court for conspiracy to supply heroin. The Crown alleged that a courier collected heroin during a visit from Evesham to Leigh, and that telephone activity connected the defendants with the arrangements. It also relied on a later secluded meeting between groups travelling from Leigh and Evesham, after which £4,000 was recovered from one vehicle.

At the close of the Crown case, the trial judge upheld submissions of no case to answer by six defendants. He considered that gaps in surveillance, uninvestigated telephone contacts, DNA from two non-defendants on the package, and the interval before the later meeting left realistic innocent explanations.

The Crown appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The central issue was whether the combined evidence was capable of supporting a jury inference that the respondents participated in the alleged conspiracy.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the no-case-to-answer ruling and directed that the trial continue against all defendants.
2. Under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court could reverse the ruling if it was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle, or was not reasonably open to the judge. The decisive question was the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the Crown case. The difference between the earlier refusal to dismiss the charge and the later ruling was not determinative.
3. The Crown did not have to prove the identity of the person who handed the heroin to the courier, or the precise time and place of transfer. It was enough that the evidence could support a tenable inference that the courier obtained the heroin during his visit to Leigh. If so, a person at the Leigh end of the transaction had to be a conspirator.
4. The DNA evidence did not justify taking the case from the jury. The presence of DNA from two non-defendants on the package was capable of showing their involvement with the heroin, but it did not exculpate the respondents from the pleaded criminal agreement. In the context of drug dealing, the package or its wrapping could have passed through more hands than those charged.
5. The evidence had to be considered cumulatively. The repeated and sequenced telephone contacts, the courier's possession of heroin after visiting Leigh, the later secluded meeting, and the unexplained £4,000 were capable of supporting an inference of a continuing criminal agreement. The judge therefore made an error of principle, or reached a conclusion not reasonably open to him.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The Crown's appeal was allowed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The no-case ruling was reversed and the trial was ordered to resume against all defendants: [2014] EWCA Crim 1521.
• Liverpool Crown Court. At the close of the Crown case on 18 June 2014, the judge ruled that six defendants had no case to answer. He had previously refused applications to dismiss the charge on 5 June 2014.