Williams v R

A court may regulate the route by which otherwise relevant hearsay is introduced. Where a third party’s alleged confession is tendered through a further witness, the requirements for multiple hearsay and the interests of justice must be met. The availability of the direct recipient, uncertainty about the statement’s meaning, and the inability to test its context may justify exclusion.

Hearsay relied on by a defendant may properly attract a clear cautionary direction, provided that the burden and standard of proof remain unchanged. An attack on the character of a non-witness may open the bad-character gateway, but admission remains subject to fairness. A tailored warning, rather than a modified identification direction, may suffice for evidence identifying clothing.

The applicant was convicted of murder at the Central Criminal Court. His case at trial was that another man, Danele Smith, had stabbed the deceased after being handed the knife by Tamisha Williams.

On his renewed application for leave to appeal conviction, the applicant challenged rulings concerning alleged confessions by Smith, including a recorded conversation and later fresh voice-message evidence. He also challenged the admission of Smith’s denial, bad-character evidence, the refusal of a submission of no case to answer, and several jury directions.

The central questions were whether the hearsay rulings and directions were legally sound and whether the later alleged confession rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction was refused. None of the grounds arguably demonstrated that the verdict was unsafe.

2. The judge was entitled to control the route by which the alleged conversation between Smith and the applicant’s mother was introduced. If introduced through a police officer, it would have been multiple hearsay. The judge could conclude that admission was not in the interests of justice because the conversation was ambiguous, its context and speakers could not properly be tested, and the available direct recipient could give evidence. The prosecution was also entitled to adduce Smith’s later denial in order to prevent a one-sided account of his statements about the killing.

3. The later voice message did not amount to a confession. Its language was materially ambiguous, and the proposed interpretation depended on speculation. Applying the approach in R v Ishtiaq Ahmed [2002] EWCA Crim 2781, the court assessed the fresh material itself and held that it had no material impact on the safety of the conviction.

4. The applicant’s grave allegations that Smith and Williams were responsible for the killing constituted an attack on their character. This permitted admission of the applicant’s convictions under the relevant bad-character gateway. The judge’s direction properly confined their use to credibility and prohibited propensity reasoning.

5. The directions were appropriate. Hearsay adduced for the defence could be approached with caution without altering the burden of proof. No modified Turnbull direction was required for witnesses’ later identification of clothing, although the judge correctly gave a caution. The applicant’s disputed trial assertions, omitted from his prepared statement and interview, justified a direction under section 34. A Lucas direction protected the applicant from improper use of possible lies, and self-defence had to be left to the jury because the evidence raised it.

6. There was a clear evidential basis for the case to remain with the jury, particularly the evidence linking the person hit by the skateboard with the stabber.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal the murder conviction was refused in [2014] EWCA Crim 1862.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference of sentence, the original minimum term was quashed and replaced with 12 years: [2012] EWCA Crim 2352; [2013] 1 Cr. App. R. (S.) 124.
• Central Criminal Court: The applicant was convicted of murder by a majority verdict. He was detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, with a minimum term of 10 years and 6 months.