R v KC

Written assistance may be given to a jury where it will help jurors evaluate evidence, but it should be focused, fair, balanced and uncontroversial. It should normally form part of the written legal directions rather than the judge’s summary of the evidence, and should be discussed with counsel in good time. The judge must not constrain the jury’s consideration of the facts. A failure to follow that best practice does not automatically make convictions unsafe. The court assesses the accuracy and balance of the material, the judge’s warnings, the jury’s ability to consider all the evidence, any curative directions and the overall safety of the verdict. For sentencing, proper offence categorisation, consideration of mitigation and totality, and absence of error or manifest excess will generally defeat an appeal.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at York of six historic indecent assaults and two offences of indecency with a child arising from alleged sexual abuse of V during her childhood. The trial judge provided the jury with three written documents concerning delayed complaint, grooming and V’s possible motives. The appellant argued that the documents were unnecessary, selective and insufficiently balanced, and that they had been provided without adequate advance discussion. He also challenged the sentence as excessive and relied on alleged factual inaccuracies in the sentencing remarks. The central issues were whether the written assistance rendered the convictions unsafe and whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive.

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

1. Written assistance. Rule 25.14 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 permits assistance in writing where it will help jurors evaluate the evidence. The topics addressed here were common-sense matters and were not objectionable merely because the judge contextualised them by reference to the evidence. Their broad thrust fell within the boundaries identified in R v Miller [2010] EWCA Crim 1578.
2. Fairness and balance. A judge should exercise extreme caution before placing before the jury, as part of the evidence summary, a document containing an account of the evidence. Where written assistance is necessary, the preferable course is to include carefully focused guidance in the written legal directions. It must be fair, balanced and uncontroversial, must not constrain the jury’s consideration of factual matters, and should be discussed with counsel in good time.
3. Safety of the convictions. The documents contained no material errors or misstatements. One document understated the defence case on motive, but its purpose was to remind the jury that rejecting an improper motive did not prove the allegations. The other documents contextualised the guidance rather than purporting to reproduce the evidence. The judge clearly stated that the documents were not directions of law, that facts were for the jury, and that all the evidence remained for consideration. Those directions substantially cured any potential imbalance. The convictions were safe.
4. Sentence. The offences were properly categorised by reference to the relevant sentencing guidance and maximum sentences. The judge took account of the appellant’s age, good character, mitigation and totality. There was no material sentencing inaccuracy or error of principle, and the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 1378.
2. Crown Court at York. Before HHJ Hickey and a jury, the appellant was convicted of eight historic sexual offences and sentenced to a total of nine years’ imprisonment.