Bennett & Ors, R. v

A judge should not normally give a jury a written factual chronology of the judge’s own creation. If a written exposition of the facts is thought necessary, it should be agreed with counsel and disclosed before closing speeches. Its use does not, however, automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess the document’s accuracy and omissions, the jury’s familiarity with the underlying material, and the adequacy of directions preserving the jury’s exclusive role as fact-finder.

For an extended sentence, dangerousness is not established solely by the gravity of the current firearms offending. The offender’s age and antecedents may be decisive.

Following a series of firearms incidents in Chingford in 2012, several defendants were tried at Wood Green Crown Court before Judge Pawlak and a jury. Bennett, Paul, Addo and Larbi were convicted of conspiracies to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life. Simpson had pleaded guilty to separate supplier conspiracies.

Bennett, Paul and Addo appealed against conviction. They contended that the judge had made the verdicts unsafe by distributing a 19-page chronology of evidence during his summing-up. Simpson appealed against his extended sentence. Bennett and Paul also challenged their sentences. The central issue on the conviction appeals was whether the written chronology rendered the verdicts unsafe.

1. The conviction appeals were dismissed. A judge should not normally place before a jury a factual document created by the judge. Written legal directions and routes to verdict are proper, but a factual exposition should, if needed, be agreed with counsel and shown to them before closing speeches. The court endorsed the warning in R v McCredie [2000] BCC 617.

2. The chronology’s use did not make these convictions unsafe. It contained no significant error or misstatement. Some omissions would have been preferable to avoid, but were not serious. The jury had heard a six-week trial, were familiar with the bundles and schedules, and could consider material omitted from the chronology. The judge expressly stated that the chronology was selective, did not express an opinion, and did not displace the jury’s role as the sole judges of fact. Those directions substantially cured the potential difficulty.

3. Simpson’s sentence appeal was allowed. The facts of grave offending alone did not establish dangerousness. Simpson had no previous convictions. The starting point was too high; allowing for his guilty plea, the court quashed the extended sentence of 20 years and substituted a determinate sentence of 13 years and 6 months.

4. Bennett’s sentence appeal was dismissed. His previous firearms conviction properly supported the finding of dangerousness and was also an aggravating feature of the present offending. There was no impermissible double counting. The extended sentence, comprising 14 years’ custody and a four-year extension period, was upheld.

5. Paul’s sentence appeal was allowed. He was 19 and had no previous convictions. He should have been sentenced on the same basis as Addo. The extended sentence was quashed and replaced with a determinate sentence of 12 years. Addo did not appeal against sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2014] EWCA Crim 2652, the court dismissed the conviction appeals of Bennett, Paul and Addo. It allowed the sentence appeals of Simpson and Paul, and dismissed Bennett’s sentence appeal.

• Wood Green Crown Court. In May and June 2013, Judge Pawlak and a jury convicted Bennett, Paul, Addo and Larbi of the firearms and ammunition conspiracies. The judge imposed extended sentences on Simpson, Bennett and Paul.