Miah, R v

A criminal trial judge need not follow prescribed wording, but must give clear, accurate and necessary directions on the burden and standard of proof. The jury must be directed that it can convict only if it is sure of guilt. A direction that the prosecution must merely satisfy the jury or prove the accusation is insufficient.

A summing-up must also be fair and balanced. Judicial comment on evidence is permissible, but must not disparage the defence or convey that the defendant bears the burden of explaining away the prosecution case. These requirements apply regardless of the apparent strength of the prosecution case or the brevity of the trial.

The appellant was convicted at Canterbury Crown Court, following a three-day jury trial, of conspiracy to steal BMW vehicles obtained through a fictitious leasing arrangement. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.

The prosecution alleged that he knowingly joined a plan to take stolen vehicles to continental Europe. He denied knowing that the vehicles were stolen or being party to a conspiracy. On appeal, he challenged the adequacy, balance and legal accuracy of the Recorder’s summing-up, principally the absence of a proper direction on the criminal standard of proof.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was unsafe and was quashed. The court declined to order a retrial.

2. Although a judge may use plain language and need not reproduce the Judicial College Compendium, the summing-up must contain accurate legal directions on matters requiring them. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, subject to properly explained statutory inferences. Most fundamentally, the jury must be told that it may convict only if it is sure of guilt.

3. The Recorder did not give that direction. Saying that the prosecution had to satisfy the jury and prove that the accusation was true did not adequately convey the criminal standard. That conclusion was supported by Hepworth [1955] QB 600, which establishes that language of satisfaction is insufficient in this context.

4. The error was compounded by the structure and tone of the summing-up. The Recorder’s comments on the appellant’s evidence were disparaging, omitted points available to the defence, and could give the jury the impression that the defendants had to explain away an apparently powerful prosecution case. A judge may comment on evidence, but a defendant is entitled to a fair, balanced and legally accurate summing-up whether the defence appears strong or weak.

5. Despite the potentially strong prosecution case and the short trial, the court could not be satisfied that the appellant had received a fair trial or that the conviction was safe. A retrial was not appropriate given the age of the allegation and the time already spent in custody.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was allowed in [2018] EWCA Crim 563. The conviction was quashed and no retrial was ordered.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to steal after a jury trial and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment.