Mitchell, R. v

In a circumstantial criminal case, a trial judge may leave the case to the jury where the combined evidence provides a sufficient basis on which a properly directed reasonable jury could convict. The assessment is of the evidence as a whole. An unexplained fingerprint in the relevant location, telephone evidence consistent with presence near the offence, and links with a proven accomplice could together meet that threshold, even if individual features admitted of innocent explanation.

The applicant was convicted at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court of robbery and possession of an offensive weapon, and received concurrent sentences of seven and three years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he was the passenger who used an axe to rob a jeweller’s shop, while Donnelly drove the car. Donnelly had separately been convicted as a joint participant. The issue at the applicant’s trial was identification.

The prosecution relied on contact between the two men, cell-site evidence, and the applicant’s unexplained fingerprint on a bag in the front passenger footwell of the abandoned car. The applicant contended that the recorder should have upheld a submission of no case to answer. A single judge refused leave to appeal, and the application was renewed before the full court.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. The convictions were not unsafe.

2. This was a circumstantial case. The relevant question was whether the prosecution evidence, taken together, provided a sufficient basis on which a properly directed reasonable jury could convict.

3. The applicant’s unexplained fingerprint on a bag found in the front passenger footwell of the abandoned car was capable of supporting the inference that he had occupied the seat used by the other offender. That evidence was strengthened by telephone evidence consistent with his phone being near the scene at the material time and by evidence of his links with Donnelly.

4. The fact that the applicant lived locally, and the absence of evidence about the geographical coverage of the relevant radio mast, did not render the prosecution evidence insufficient. Those matters did not prevent a jury from properly drawing the inference urged by the prosecution.

5. The recorder was therefore entitled to leave the case to the jury. It was not arguable that the decision was wrong or that any other ground made the convictions unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

• Single judge: application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames: applicant convicted of robbery and possession of an offensive weapon and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment.