Odum-Toland v R.

A summing up in a criminal trial must be assessed as a whole. A direction on circumstantial evidence is adequate where the jury are told to be sure of the circumstances and the conclusion drawn from them, to avoid speculation, and to consider the defence account.

An imperfect direction on hearsay or lies will not render a conviction unsafe where the jury have repeatedly been directed on the prosecution’s burden and standard of proof. A jury may treat an unexplained lie as relevant to credibility, but rejection of an accused’s account cannot substitute for proof of the specific intent required for the offence.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook of conspiracy to possess prohibited firearms with intent to endanger life. He had pleaded guilty to a lesser count of conspiracy to possess firearms. The prosecution relied principally on agreed evidence concerning the importation and collection of concealed handguns, ammunition, and messages about their sale.

He appealed against conviction on three grounds. He challenged directions concerning circumstantial evidence, hearsay evidence from the American supplier, and lies in his first defence statement. The central issue was whether the summing up, viewed fairly and as a whole, gave the jury adequate guidance and left the conviction safe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe. Although the trial judge could have adopted a more systematic approach, the summing up was neither confusing nor inadequate when read as a whole.
2. The circumstantial-evidence direction was sufficient on the unusual facts of the case. The facts were substantially agreed and the disputed inference concerned the appellant’s intent. The judge correctly directed the jury that they had to be sure both of the circumstances relied on and of the conclusion drawn from them. He also warned them not to engage in guesswork, speculation or theorising, and set out the appellant’s contrary account. A written direction would have been preferable, but its absence did not make the direction inadequate.
3. The hearsay direction contained an imperfection. The jury should have been told that the appellant’s account of what he told the supplier might be true, rather than only that, if they thought it true, he was not guilty. However, the supplier’s statement was relied upon by the defence and was capable of supporting the appellant’s case. Repeated directions elsewhere made clear that the Crown had to prove intent so that the jury were sure. The imperfection did not cause unfairness.
4. The court rejected the challenge to the direction about the false first defence statement. This was not a case in which the prosecution sought an adverse inference under section 11 of the Criminal Procedure Investigations Act 1996. The issue was whether the lie affected the appellant’s credibility. A full Lucas direction was not required. The judge properly told the jury that one lie did not require rejection of all the evidence and that, even if they rejected the appellant’s explanation, they still had to be sure that he possessed the stringent specific intent required for count 1.
5. The jury could not use a finding of lying as a short-cut to guilt. On the evidence, the appellant’s asserted belief that law-abiding persons would acquire the concealed prohibited firearms was highly improbable. The court was sure that the conviction remained safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appellant’s conviction appeal: [2020] EWCA Crim 124.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook — convicted the appellant of conspiracy to possess prohibited firearms with intent to endanger life after trial, and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. Citation not stated in the judgment.