Snape, R v

A summing-up must fairly and adequately identify the parties’ cases, the major issues and the evidence on which they rest. It must give assurance that the jury’s unreasoned verdict was reached on the relevant facts. It need not recite every item of evidence or submission. Its form depends on what will fairly assist the jury in the particular trial.

Where previous inconsistent statements are admitted under Criminal Justice Act 2003, the jury must be directed on their evidential use. An omission to rehearse every inconsistency will not render a conviction unsafe if the summing-up and the evidence as a whole enabled the jury properly to assess reliability.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Manchester, Minshull Street, of the murder of Nathan Marshall and the attempted murder of Aaron Baker. He had also pleaded guilty to manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and dangerous driving. He received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 24 years.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction, contending that the judge’s summing-up inadequately addressed inconsistencies between eyewitness evidence and prior police statements admitted under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. With leave, he also appealed the minimum term as manifestly excessive. The central questions were whether the summing-up rendered the convictions unsafe and whether the total minimum term was excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

2. A summing-up has two related functions: it must remind the jury, so far as necessary, of the salient facts and the parties’ cases; and it must provide assurance that the unreasoned verdict rests on the relevant facts. The court applied the guidance in R v Reynolds [2019] EWCA Crim 2145. A judge need not rehearse every argument or every part of the evidence. What is required depends on what is fair, reasonable and helpful in the particular case.

3. The judge’s additional direction adequately explained how the jury could use the prior inconsistent statements admitted under section 119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The jury were told to consider whether an inconsistency affected reliability and that the earlier account was evidence which they could accept, reject, or prefer to the later account.

4. It would have been preferable for the judge to draw the defence contentions and the prior statements together more clearly. However, the summing-up extensively reviewed the witnesses’ evidence and identified a number of discrepancies. The decisive driving events were also illuminated by objective CCTV and expert collision evidence. Viewed as a whole, the summing-up did not render the convictions unsafe.

5. The 24-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive. The murder involved use of a car as a weapon with intent to kill, and was aggravated by drink and drugs, flight, prior convictions and the accompanying attempted murder and other offences. The absence of planning and an element of panic did not outweigh the total criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Manchester, Minshull Street. On 18 December 2018, convicted the applicant of murder and attempted murder, following guilty pleas to further offences, and imposed life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term.