Bridge, R v

A criminal trial is not rendered unfair by proper judicial questions seeking clarity on a material issue, or by a summing-up which fairly leaves disputed evidence and witness reliability to the jury. A judge may correct a potentially misleading submission and give robust directions needed to preserve fairness for all defendants.

The racial composition of a randomly selected jury does not itself justify a challenge, discharge, or attempt to secure a particular racial balance. A general warning about unconscious bias may be permissible in an appropriate case, but race-specific submissions made without an evidential basis may improperly pressure or offend jurors.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Hove of the murder of Anthony Williams and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years. His case at trial was that he had stabbed Williams in self-defence.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction after the Single Judge’s refusal. The seven grounds alleged that the trial judge had improperly bolstered prosecution witnesses, undermined the self-defence case by questioning the applicant, inadequately directed on witnesses’ bad character, improperly commented on expert evidence, unfairly criticised defence counsel, and wrongly refused to discharge the jury.

The application also raised the propriety and consequences of defence counsel’s race-based closing submission to an all-white jury.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. None of the seven grounds had arguable merit, whether considered separately or cumulatively.

2. The judge’s comments about Hitchens did not improperly bolster his credibility. The summing-up made clear that assessment of all witnesses was for the jury. Nor did the judge’s question about the fatal wound to Williams’s back undermine self-defence. It was a proper request for clarity on an important issue, and the judge did not later suggest that the wound itself made self-defence less likely.

3. The directions on the prosecution witnesses’ previous convictions sufficiently addressed their relevance to credibility, drug dealing at the flat, and the defence allegation that the applicant had been lured there. The judge’s initial colloquial comment on the forensic evidence was better replaced by his later explanation. That explanation fairly identified its possible significance while stressing that the expert evidence was disputed and that factual conclusions remained for the jury.

4. The judge was entitled to correct defence counsel’s unsupported questioning of the co-accused about mental health and to prevent speculation about the absent witness Lam. Those directions protected the fairness of the trial.

5. Applying R v Ford [1989] QB 868, as later endorsed in R v Smith [2003] 1 WLR 2229, the court held that a jury’s racial composition cannot itself found a challenge, justify discharge, or warrant an attempt to obtain a particular racial mix. There was no evidence of conscious or unconscious bias. Counsel’s race-specific closing submission should not have been made without the judge’s permission. Once it had been made, the judge’s firm but fair corrective direction ensured the fairness of the trial.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application in R v Bridge, [2019] EWCA Crim 2220, refused following the Single Judge’s refusal of leave.
• Crown Court at Hove — applicant convicted of murder on 15 June 2018 and sentenced on 13 July 2018 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years.