Seddon, R v

A jury does not require a special legal direction merely because an expert witness gives trial evidence said to depart from a joint expert statement prepared under the Criminal Procedural Rules. The judge must fairly identify the disagreement, remind the jury of the competing evidence, and leave its evaluation to them.

The jury may accept the expert's trial evidence if sure that it is right, including where it finds a good explanation for the departure or considers other evidence compelling. A conventional direction on expert evidence and a balanced review will ordinarily suffice.

After a jury trial at Manchester Crown Square Crown Court, Stephen Seddon was convicted of murdering both parents and attempting to murder them in an earlier incident. He received life sentences for murder with a minimum term of 40 years, and concurrent 20-year sentences for attempted murder.

More than five years later, he sought an extension of time and leave to appeal. His sole proposed ground concerned expert evidence about the interval between the victims eating a meal and their deaths. One expert's trial evidence was said to differ from a joint statement prepared under rule 19.6 of the Criminal Procedural Rules. The issue was whether the summing-up required a specific legal direction about that asserted departure.

1. The renewed application was refused. The proposed appeal had no prospect of success, and the very long delay was not sufficiently explained.
2. The trial judge's conventional direction on expert evidence was correct. It explained that the jury had to assess the strengths and weaknesses of expert evidence, and that where experts disagreed it was for the jury to judge their competing opinions.
3. The judge then gave an accurate and balanced account of the two experts' evidence, including the defence challenge that one expert had changed position after signing the joint statement. That placed the material issue clearly before the jury.
4. A joint statement prepared under rule 19.6 of the Criminal Procedural Rules did not require a separate legal direction explaining its status or requiring special scrutiny of evidence said to depart from it. Such a requirement would extend inappropriately to other aspects of expert evidence. The necessary direction was to identify the asserted change of position and leave the jury to assess it.
5. If the jury found a discrepancy between the joint statement and the expert's trial evidence, it could accept the latter if sure that it was right. It could find good cause for the departure by accepting the expert's explanation, by taking account of the compelling circumstantial evidence, or both.
6. In any event, the circumstantial evidence as a whole was compelling. The asserted inadequacy in this aspect of the summing-up did not render the convictions unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction: [2019] EWCA Crim 1411.
• Manchester Crown Square Crown Court: On 27 March 2013, the applicant was convicted by a jury of two murders and two attempted murders. No appeal was brought at the time.