Crow, R. v

Voice identification evidence is not inadmissible merely because it is based on a short utterance or a lay listener. Risks affecting reliability are ordinarily matters of weight for the jury, provided it receives a full Turnbull warning adapted to voice identification and more stringent than for visual identification. On renewal after a Single Judge’s refusal, fresh grounds must be cogent and delay must have a good explanation. Fresh evidence on appeal is admitted only where the interests of justice require it, having regard to the statutory factors and its apparent capability of belief.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Cardiff in January 2016 of aggravated burglary and wounding with intent, and received an overall sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment. A Single Judge dismissed his application for leave to appeal on 11 July 2016. Nearly four years later, he renewed the application, sought an extension of time and challenged the admission of voice recognition evidence. He also sought to adduce three witness statements said to implicate another man. The central issues were the delay and cogency of the renewed grounds, the admissibility and proper treatment of voice identification evidence, and whether the interests of justice required admission of the fresh evidence.

Application refused. The renewed application for leave and the associated application for an extension of time were both refused.

1. Cogency and delay. Fresh grounds raised after dismissal by a Single Judge must be cogent, and the advocate should address the relevant factors in writing. The hurdle is high, and a renewal nearly four years out of time required a good and adequately explained reason for the delay. No such reason was established. The approach identified in R v James and others [2018] EWCA Crim 285 was applied.
2. Voice identification. The risks of mistaken voice identification are well recognised. Relevant considerations include the quality of any recording, the interval between hearing the known and disputed voice, the listener’s ability, the nature and duration of the speech, familiarity with the known voice, and the difference between expert and lay recognition. Those matters ordinarily affect weight rather than admissibility. The principles discussed in R v Flynn (Chris Ronald) [2008] EWCA Crim 970 were used in assessing the evidence.
3. Directions and PACE. There was no dedicated Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code governing identification by voice alone. The risks could properly be addressed by a full Turnbull warning modified for voice identification, and more stringent than the warning required for visual identification. The absence of a specific code did not make the evidence inadmissible. The reliability concerns identified by the defence were matters for the jury, particularly because there were also factors supporting reliability, including instant recognition and contact between the men only hours before the assault. No application to exclude the evidence had been made under section 78 of the Act.
4. Fresh evidence. Under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the controlling question was whether the interests of justice required admission, with particular regard to whether the evidence appeared capable of belief. The proposed evidence was not cogent. The first witness appeared motivated by hostility towards the alleged alternative perpetrator, while the other statements were unsigned and undated and came from witnesses with substantial convictions. The four-year delay also lacked an adequate explanation.
5. The court therefore refused the extension of time and held that neither ground disclosed an arguable basis for concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for leave to appeal and application for an extension of time refused: [2021] EWCA Crim 617.
2. Single Judge — application for leave to appeal dismissed on 11 July 2016.
3. Crown Court at Cardiff — applicant convicted in January 2016 and sentenced to an overall term of 12 years’ imprisonment.