R v Morgan-Salih

A trial judge may give supplementary directions after a break in a jury’s deliberations, especially to refresh the jury’s recollection of central issues. The directions must be fair and even-handed when read with the summing-up as a whole. A conviction is not unsafe merely because the supplementary directions emphasise aspects of the prosecution case, provided they are accurate, consistent with the earlier directions, and leave the jury with no misunderstanding about the prosecution’s burden and standard of proof.

The appellant was convicted at Woolwich Crown Court of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and was sentenced to six years’ detention in a young offender institution. The prosecution alleged that, when approached by police, he disposed of a loaded revolver in a hedge. He denied possession and relied in particular on the absence of forensic evidence linking him to the weapon.

After a two-day interruption in deliberations, the trial judge gave supplementary directions on possession, intent, the absence of forensic evidence, and the prosecution’s burden of proof. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that those final directions were unbalanced and rendered the verdict unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The supplementary directions did not render the conviction unsafe.
2. There is, in principle, no objection to a judge reminding a jury of central elements of the case after a gap in deliberations. This may be particularly appropriate where the interruption has lasted several days. It would nevertheless have been preferable for the judge to notify counsel and invite observations before giving the further directions.
3. Such a reminder must be fair and free from bias. Its fairness must be assessed by reading both the original summing-up and the supplementary directions. The additional directions were accurate. They were consistent with the earlier summing-up and correctly explained that the absence of forensic evidence did not itself amount to positive evidence for the defendant; the prosecution could rely on circumstantial evidence, but still had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The judge’s brief later reminder that the prosecution had to prove the case was sufficient. The jury had just been told the applicable standard of proof. The judge was not required, in the supplementary directions, to repeat the full factual case for the defence or to restate every earlier direction. The jury would have retained the relevant factual matters from the short trial.
5. Read as a whole, the directions did not leave the jury with a biased view of the evidence or a misunderstanding of the prosecution’s continuing burden and standard of proof. The verdict was therefore safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeal against conviction dismissed: [2014] EWCA Crim 949.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: The appellant was convicted by a majority of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and sentenced to six years’ detention in a young offender institution.