Palmer, R. v

At the close of the prosecution case, the question is whether, taking that case at its highest, a properly directed reasonable jury could draw the inferences required for conviction. Direct evidence of knowledge or possession is unnecessary where the circumstantial evidence can safely support an inference of joint possession.

Counts properly founded on the same facts need not be severed merely because admissible propensity evidence relates to one count. Clear directions restricting that evidence to the relevant count may prevent unfair prejudice.

The applicant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court on 2 October 2015 of possessing a bladed article and of possessing crack cocaine and diamorphine with intent to supply. Police had stopped a car in Chelmsford containing the applicant and two other men from East London. Drugs with an aggregate street value of about £3,500 were found in the car, and the applicant discarded a lock-knife when leaving it.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge had refused permission. He challenged the refusal to sever the knife count and the rejection of a submission of no case to answer on the drugs counts. He also sought an extension of time.

1. The court refused an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal consequently failed. None of the proposed grounds was arguable.

2. The knife and drugs counts were properly joined under rule 3.21(4) of the Criminal Procedure Rules because they arose from the same facts. The trial judge was entitled to refuse severance under section 5(3) of the Indictments Act 1915. The propensity evidence concerning previous knife convictions was relevant only to the knife count, and the case was sufficiently straightforward for the jury to follow a direction restricting its use. Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29 supported that exercise of discretion.

3. On the drugs counts, the correct question was whether, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, a properly directed reasonable jury could draw the necessary inferences. The judge correctly left the case to the jury. The applicant could not be viewed in isolation from the other occupants of the car. All three were far from home, travelling with a valuable quantity of illegal Class A drugs, and the other occupants had mobile telephones receiving repeated calls. That evidence permitted a safe inference of joint possession. Once joint possession was inferred, the quantity of drugs made an intention to supply overwhelming.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The court refused an extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction failed.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford. On 2 October 2015, the applicant was convicted of possessing a bladed article and two counts of possessing Class A controlled drugs with intent to supply.