R v Precious Enoch

A criminal case may properly remain with the jury despite inconsistencies in a prosecution witness’s account. The decisive question is whether a properly directed jury could rationally accept the witness on the material issue, having considered the inconsistencies alongside the whole of the evidence.

Where other evidence is capable of supporting the witness’s account, credibility and reliability are ordinarily matters for the jury. A submission of no case to answer should not succeed merely because a witness has contradicted themself or may have lied about other matters.

The applicant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of robbery contrary to section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 and possession of a bladed article contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He received 12 years’ imprisonment for the robbery, with no separate penalty for the bladed-article offence.

The prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence, evidence from Ishmail Omar that the applicant supplied the complainant’s bank cards, and DNA recovered from the complainant’s sweater. Omar’s evidence contained significant inconsistencies. The defence contended that Omar might have committed the robbery and that any DNA transfer was innocent.

Following refusal by a single judge, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction. The central issue was whether the trial judge should have upheld the submission of no case to answer.

1. The court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The 11-day delay was short and was not attributable to the applicant.
2. The trial judge was entitled to leave the case to the jury. Omar’s evidence was inconsistent in several respects, including his account of when the applicant stayed with him, the number of cards used, and his asserted lack of knowledge that the cards were stolen. Those matters created difficulties about his reliability, but they did not render his evidence incapable of acceptance on the central issue.
3. The essential question was whether Omar was truthful when he said that the applicant had given him the complainant’s cards. That was a matter for the jury. Juries commonly have to assess witnesses whose evidence is mixed in quality or who have contradicted themselves or lied about some matters.
4. There was evidence capable of supporting Omar’s account. The applicant’s DNA was found on the complainant’s sweater, and the complainant’s evidence gave at least some support to Omar’s account. Although an innocent transfer of DNA was possible, the jury could conclude that its presence resulted from the applicant committing the robbery.
5. Taking the evidence together, a properly directed jury could accept the Crown’s case and convict. The submission of no case to answer was therefore rightly rejected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2022] EWCA Crim 1585, granted an 11-day extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Luton Crown Court: On 14 January 2022, convicted the applicant of robbery and possession of a bladed article. On 8 March 2022, imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for robbery, with no separate penalty for the second count.