Jurecka & Ors v R

A trial judge need not rehearse every item of evidence or every submission in a summing up. The essential requirements are correct legal directions, an accurate and balanced review of the main facts and alleged facts, and an overall impression of fairness. An omission will render a conviction unsafe only where the summing up, viewed as a whole, fails to convey the balance of the evidence fairly.

Jury working documents may be used as aides memoire where their source and non-evidential status are clear. They must be confined to the facts relied on and brief, neutral conclusions, and must not replace proper speeches or an adequate summing up.

Following a trial lasting more than three months in the Crown Court at Maidstone, the three appellants were convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation in connection with the sale of horses. The prosecution alleged dishonest descriptions, the masking of defects with drugs, and the manipulation of pre-purchase veterinary examinations.

All three appealed against conviction, principally contending that the judge had failed to remind the jury of concessions made by prosecution witnesses in cross-examination. Jurecka renewed applications concerning hearsay evidence, jury working documents, abuse of process and the summing up. Johnson also appealed against her sentence, arguing that it failed to reflect Jurecka’s leading role.

1. The conviction appeals were dismissed. The issue at trial was whether the appellants had joined a dishonest conspiracy. The jury’s verdict did not depend upon a single sale, witness or concession. There was strong evidence of false representations, extensive admissions of lies in sales, the use of drugs, and efforts to ensure that Smith conducted the veterinary examinations.

2. The court applied the established approach to summing up. A judge need not rehearse all the evidence or every argument. Counsel’s speeches do not replace an impartial judicial review, but the summing up must accurately address the main issues and be fair overall. The court considered that the judge’s wholesale decision not to recite cross-examination of a category of witnesses was undesirable. It did not, however, make the summing up unfair or the convictions unsafe. The jury had heard the points, made notes, received detailed closing speeches, and had working documents containing much of the favourable material.

3. The court held that the purchaser’s statement had properly been admitted. The conditions in section 116(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were conceded to be met. The statement was edited, and the suggested internet communications and possible effect on evidence could be explored through other witnesses. The trial judge had properly exercised the relevant fairness discretion.

4. There is no absolute objection to jury working documents. Their source and nature must be clear, and the jury must be told that they are not evidence. They should provide a convenient reminder of facts relied on and brief, neutral conclusions, without becoming a substitute for closing speeches or a sufficient summing up.

5. The renewed applications concerning no case to answer, alleged witness contamination, and the alleged overall deficiency of the summing up were refused. The late-discovered online posts had no realistic capacity to affect the trial and had negligible significance for the witness’s credibility.

6. Johnson’s sentence appeal was allowed. Although the judge had identified Jurecka as the driving force, he imposed equal sentences. The court quashed Johnson’s sentence of two years and six months and substituted two years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2017] EWCA Crim 1007, dismissed the conviction appeals and renewed applications for leave to appeal, but allowed Johnson’s appeal against sentence and reduced it from two years and six months to two years.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: Following a jury trial, convicted all three appellants of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation on 13 June 2016. On 11 July 2016, sentenced each to two years and six months’ imprisonment.