REGINA v COLERIDGE HASTINGS-COKER

A trial judge may address a possible third party’s involvement where that possibility has been actively canvassed during the hearing. The direction may make clear that third-party involvement does not preclude a defendant’s guilt, provided the parties have had a fair opportunity to address the issue.

Evidence found in the same search may have the necessary temporal nexus with the charged offence to fall within section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, rather than the bad-character regime. Relevant evidence may be admitted where it does not adversely affect trial fairness under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Circumstantial evidence may justify leaving knowledge of a loaded firearm to the jury.

The applicants renewed applications for leave to appeal convictions in the Crown Court at Inner London for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a prohibited firearm. A loaded sawn-off shotgun and cartridges were found in a Ford Puma. Smith had its key, while Hastings-Coker’s fingerprint was found on packaging around the firearm.

Smith challenged a summing-up direction concerning the possible involvement of the person in whose name the Puma was registered. He also challenged the admission of shotgun cartridges found at his home and the sufficiency of the evidence that he knew the gun was loaded. Hastings-Coker challenged the ruling that there was a case to answer against him.

1. The renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction were refused.

2. The judge was entitled to explain that the possible involvement of the Puma’s registered keeper did not prevent either applicant from being guilty. Smith’s closing speech had itself invited the jury to consider that person’s responsibility. The issue had therefore been actively canvassed, and there was no suggested new evidence or lost opportunity for cross-examination. The circumstances differed from R v White [1987] Crim LR 505.

3. The cartridges found at Smith’s home were connected with the alleged firearm offences. Applying the temporal-nexus approach in R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, the court held that the same-search evidence had to do with the alleged facts of the offence and was excluded from bad-character evidence by section 98(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. No bad-character application was required. The evidence was potentially relevant and its admission did not adversely affect the fairness of proceedings under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

4. The judge was entitled to leave Smith’s knowledge of the loaded firearm to the jury. A loaded shotgun and further cartridges were in the Puma, Smith had its key, and the circumstances were unexplained in interview. If the jury found that he knew the gun was there, they could infer that he knew it was loaded.

5. There was also a case for Hastings-Coker to answer. His fingerprint on packaging around the firearm, coupled with his association with Smith and Smith’s access to the Puma, provided evidence capable of supporting the prosecution case. Campbell v Her Majesty's Advocate [2008] High Court JAC 50 was distinguishable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2014] EWCA Crim 555, refused both renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Crown Court at Inner London: on 24 October 2012, convicted each applicant of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of a prohibited firearm; each received seven years’ detention in a young offender institution and a concurrent three-year sentence.