Purlis, R. v

Where facial-mapping or imagery evidence is relied upon, the jury must be directed to approach it with care. They should understand the limits of an expert assessment which is not supported by a statistical database, including that expressions of support reflect expert judgment rather than a quantified probability. The adequacy of directions is assessed fairly and as a whole. In a straightforward identification trial, a written route to verdict is not required where the oral summing-up clearly identifies the jury’s task.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of robbery and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. The Crown alleged that he was the armed robber shown leaving the scene in dashcam footage. Its principal identification evidence was facial-mapping evidence from an imagery expert. The appellant relied on an alibi and challenged the expert evidence and the trial judge’s summing-up.

By leave of the single judge, the appeal concerned the adequacy of the directions on facial mapping. The appellant also sought renewed leave on alleged omissions in the treatment of the alibi, absent supporting evidence, the local release of an image, and the absence of written directions or a route to verdict. The central issue was whether the summing-up rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that the summing-up was balanced, fair and legally adequate. It did not render the conviction unsafe.

2. The trial judge correctly directed the jury to treat the facial-mapping evidence with caution. He identified the material limitations of the evidence: the possibility of a similar-looking person, the quality and angle of the images, the absence of a national database or statistical probability, and the expert’s necessarily subjective assessment. He also correctly explained that the absence of statistical support did not prevent an experienced expert from expressing an opinion. This complied with the caution identified in Atkins [2009] EWCA Crim. 1876.

3. The alibi direction was orthodox. The appellant bore no burden to prove that he was elsewhere. The Crown had to disprove the alibi and prove, so that the jury was sure, that he was at the bank and committed the robbery. The judge had also fairly rehearsed the evidence concerning the alibi witness’s disputed timings.

4. The judge had sufficiently drawn the jury’s attention to the absence of forensic, CCTV and other evidence linking the appellant to the relevant items. He was not required to emphasise each asserted evidential omission in the particular terms sought by the defence. Read as a whole, the summing-up supplied every necessary direction.

5. There was no need for written directions or a written route to verdict. The case involved one straightforward issue, identification, and the oral directions stated the jury’s task lucidly and explicitly. Renewed leave on the remaining grounds was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused renewed leave on the additional grounds.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): granted leave on the adequacy of the facial-mapping direction.
• Crown Court at Lewes: convicted the appellant of robbery on 16 December 2016 and imposed a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment.