Coulthurst, R. v

A trial judge is not required to initiate an enquiry into a possible contempt by a witness where the information available does not disclose a prima facie case. If the defence considers that an incident may affect a witness’s credibility, it may question the witness while that opportunity remains.

A conviction is not unsafe where the suggested relevance of an overheard conversation is entirely speculative and no trial misdirection, evidential error, or other procedural defect is identified.

The applicant was convicted at Aylesbury Crown Court of intimidating Alison Chester, a potential witness, contrary to section 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

During the trial, the judge’s clerk overheard part of a conversation between Miss Chester and an unidentified man during the lunch adjournment. The Recorder declined to initiate an enquiry or contempt proceedings because the information did not establish a prima facie case and might relate to separate magistrates’ court proceedings.

Following refusal of leave by a single judge, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction. He contended that the Recorder should have investigated the conversation and that the ruling deprived the defence of material bearing on Miss Chester’s credibility.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The court held that the conviction was safe.
2. The Recorder was not required to conduct an enquiry of his own motion into the overheard conversation. Although another court might have questioned the witness in the absence of the jury, the limited words overheard did not establish a prima facie case of contempt. The conversation might have been entirely innocent or concerned separate pending proceedings.
3. The assertion that Miss Chester and the unidentified man had discussed the trial was speculative. It therefore provided no sound basis for contending that the Recorder’s ruling had affected the fairness or safety of the verdict.
4. The defence knew of the incident while Miss Chester was still giving evidence. If counsel considered that it could materially affect her credibility, counsel could have questioned her about it. The choice not to do so did not make the conviction unsafe.
5. No misdirection, wrongful admission of evidence, or other procedural defect was alleged. The application was accordingly rejected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused; conviction held safe in [2016] EWCA Crim 441.
• Crown Court at Aylesbury: convicted after jury trial of intimidation contrary to section 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 on 16 January 2015; sentenced to six months’ imprisonment on 27 May 2015.