REX v AMRIK SINGH BACHRA

On a submission of no case to answer, circumstantial evidence must be assessed at its highest under the Galbraith test. The question is whether a properly directed jury could properly convict, not whether the prosecution has proved guilt at that stage. Whether possession of drugs, packaging, mobile phones and related evidence supports an inference of an intention to supply is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury where the evidence is capable of supporting that inference. Fresh evidence will not be admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 where it could reasonably have been obtained before trial and does not demonstrate that the conviction may be unsafe.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Aylesbury of possessing Class A and Class B controlled drugs with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction. He challenged the trial judge’s refusal of a submission of no case to answer and sought to adduce witness statements as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The central issues were whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to leave the question of intent to supply to the jury and whether the proposed fresh evidence could properly be admitted.

1. Renewed application refused. The court agreed with the single judge’s reasons on both grounds.
2. On the submission of no case to answer, the judge correctly applied the test in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039. The prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, was capable of supporting a properly directed jury’s conclusion that the applicant possessed the drugs with intent to supply. The evidence included the quantities and packaging of the drugs, the presence of three mobile phones, and material on the phones which appeared to suggest dealing.
3. The issue was classically one of fact within the province of the jury. The judge was therefore right to reject the submission of no case to answer. The court did not determine the proper inference itself; it held that the evidence was sufficient for the issue to be left to the jury.
4. The proposed witness statements did not satisfy section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The evidence could reasonably have been obtained before trial if it had been considered important. In the factual context, it was not evidence likely to undermine the safety of the convictions.
5. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused.

• Crown Court at Aylesbury: Convictions were entered on 12 January 2022. On 2 February 2022, HHJ Payne imposed a total sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused on 15 September 2022.