Jackson, R. v

A trial judge has an absolute discretion whether to permit the Crown to treat its witness as hostile. Where the witness denies the truth of a previous statement, that statement may become admissible under section 119(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Appellate intervention in that discretionary ruling is exceptional. A conviction will not be unsafe where the defence has a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness, the jury receives careful directions about conflicting accounts, and the ruling has caused no legal error or unfairness.

Following a six-day trial at the Crown Court at Sheffield, James Paul Jackson was convicted of robbery and of possessing an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence. He received concurrent extended sentences.

The prosecution relied in part on evidence from a garage manager, Mr Evans. At trial he disavowed the material part of his police statement concerning a registration plate for a green motorcycle. After evidence from the officer who took that statement, the judge permitted the Crown to treat him as hostile. His previous inconsistent statement then became admissible, and the judge declined to exclude it.

The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal his conviction, out of time. The central issue was whether the hostile-witness ruling rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The Court refused an extension of time and refused permission to appeal against conviction. The renewed application was not arguable, and no purpose would be served by extending time.

2. The trial judge was entitled to find that Mr Evans was adverse to the Crown and to permit him to be treated as hostile. His trial evidence directly contradicted the relevant part of his signed police statement. The further evidence of the officer who had taken the statement supported the conclusion that the statement had been voluntarily made, read and signed. The ruling properly engaged section 119(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so that the previous inconsistent statement became admissible.

3. The decision whether to treat a witness as hostile was an absolute discretion of the trial judge. It could be challenged on appeal only in exceptional circumstances. There was no arguable error of law or principle in the exercise of that discretion.

4. Fairness was preserved. Once the statement had become admissible, the judge offered the defence an opportunity to recall and cross-examine Mr Evans. Counsel declined that opportunity. The judge also considered exclusion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and was entitled not to exclude the statement.

5. The jury received careful and adequate directions to treat Mr Evans’s conflicting accounts with caution. Moreover, the registration-plate evidence was only one part of a substantial body of identification, forensic and circumstantial evidence. The hostile-witness ruling therefore did not render the convictions unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused an extension of time and refused permission to appeal against conviction.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: The applicant was convicted on 24 April 2019 of robbery and possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence. On 7 June 2019, he received concurrent extended sentences.