Minnott, R v

Where a jury asks to replay a video-recorded police interview in order to assess how the words were spoken, the normal expectation is that the recording will be replayed. The trial judge retains a broad case-management discretion. Replay will usually be uncommon where the jury has a transcript, but may be appropriate where vocal or visual features could materially affect its assessment.

A video-recorded interview should not be treated simply as live testimony which cannot be recalled. A flawed refusal to replay it will justify allowing a conviction appeal only if the irregularity makes the conviction unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of conspiracy to defraud by participating in false applications for rent-in-advance crisis loans. The prosecution relied on, among other matters, use of the appellant’s telephone number, telephone contact with a co-conspirator, and voice-recognition evidence concerning one application.

During deliberations, the jury asked to see the video of the appellant’s police interview again. After asking what troubled the jury, the judge learned that it wished to hear her intonation. He refused the request by analogy with evidence given by a live witness. The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that the refusal was a material irregularity which rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The refusal to replay the appellant’s video-recorded interview was an irregularity, because the judge’s analogy with a live witness was inexact. It did not, however, render the conviction unsafe.
2. Where a jury asks to see a video-recorded interview in order to assess how the evidence was given, the ordinary expectation is that the recording will be replayed. That approach follows the guidance in Riaz & Burke [1992] 94 Cr App R 339 and is not displaced merely because Rawlings [1995] 1 WLR 178 concerned a complainant’s evidence.
3. The judge has a broad trial-management discretion when responding to such a request. Since a jury will normally have a written record of an interview, replay will be uncommon unless something in the recording could make a material difference. A recorded interview nevertheless differs from live testimony, because its manner of delivery can be revisited.
4. The judge had not been referred to Riaz & Burke, and his exercise of discretion was flawed. But the voice-identification evidence, although important, was not the sole foundation of the prosecution case. If the jury had doubted guilt, it had been directed to acquit. The court was therefore clear that the conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2016] EWCA Crim 2215, dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that the irregularity in refusing replay of the interview did not make the conviction unsafe.
• Crown Court at Croydon: On 26 June 2015, convicted the appellant of conspiracy to defraud before His Honour Judge Ainley and a jury.