Singh-Mann & Ors v R

A trial judge must give a summing-up that enables the jury to decide the real issues fairly. Where an accused has not given evidence, the judge need not construct a defence. However, the judge must ordinarily identify the significant submissions made on the accused’s behalf and the material from the evidence that supports them.

The evidence should be organised by issue where that is needed for clarity, rather than simply rehearsed witness by witness. A failure to summarise the defence does not automatically make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must assess the omission in the context of the trial, the simplicity of the issue, the strength of the evidence and whether the jury would nevertheless have understood the defence case.

The appellants were convicted at Harrow Crown Court of conspiracy to defraud. Ablethird Ltd obtained substantial finance from lenders by representing that properties offered as security were subject to leases with named commercial tenants. The alleged leases were false.

The prosecution contended that Mann, Panchal and Chahal each knew of and participated in the dishonest scheme. None gave or called evidence. Each relied on aspects of the prosecution evidence and cross-examination to contend that he lacked knowledge or involvement.

They appealed against conviction on the ground that the trial judge had failed adequately and fairly to summarise their individual cases. Mann and Panchal also pursued challenges to sentence. The central issue was whether the deficiency in the summing-up rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The appeals against conviction were dismissed. The judge should have given the jury a coherent summary of the central submissions advanced for each appellant and the principal evidence supporting them. In a case of this length and detail, a short focused account of each defence was required.

2. The governing approach was that a summing-up must be tailored to the case. It must accurately identify the issues, fairly summarise the evidence and arguments on both sides, and explain the available inferences. Where an accused has remained silent and has not called evidence, the judge need not build a defence. The judge must nevertheless draw attention to material assistance obtained from prosecution witnesses and to significant defence submissions. This is particularly important where adverse-inference directions are given under sections 34 or 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

3. The evidence should ordinarily be marshalled issue by issue, rather than merely in the sequence in which witnesses gave it. The judge’s witness-by-witness rehearsal was therefore an unsatisfactory method for this trial. Some individual omissions were preferable matters to include, but they did not independently render any conviction unsafe.

4. Notwithstanding the notable failure to summarise the defence arguments, the convictions were safe. The jury had to decide the straightforward questions whether each appellant knew of the false leases and agreed to participate in obtaining finance by their use. The defence cross-examination and the evidence relied upon made the competing cases sufficiently apparent. The prosecution evidence against each appellant was extremely strong.

5. The sentence challenges also failed. Seven-year terms for Mann and Panchal properly reflected a sustained, multiple banking fraud involving losses of about £8.8 million. The eight-year directors’ disqualification periods were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. Mann’s extension of time was granted, but the renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2014] EWCA Crim 717, dismissed all conviction appeals. It granted Mann an extension of time, but refused the renewed sentence applications.

• Harrow Crown Court On 10 October 2012, convicted the three appellants of conspiracy to defraud. On 29 October 2012, sentenced Mann and Panchal to seven years’ imprisonment and Chahal to three and a half years’ imprisonment, with eight-year disqualification orders.