R v Samuel Channell

Fresh evidence relied on under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 must be admissible. Evidence consisting of a non-expert comparison of alleged physical features in CCTV footage will not assist where it is opinion evidence outside the witness’s expertise and there is no adequate explanation for failing to raise it at trial.

A trial judge may refuse an adjournment sought to obtain facial-mapping evidence where the identification issue is straightforward, the CCTV and contemporary comparison material are of good quality, and there is no indication that an expert report will be obtained within a defined time. The appellate court will not interfere where that evaluative decision was fairly open to the judge and the jury received proper identification directions.

R v Samuel Channell concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against a conviction for robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

The applicant was convicted by a jury in the Crown Court at Southampton, sitting at Winchester, after the prosecution relied on CCTV footage and recognition evidence from two local police officers. His case was that he was not the person shown in the footage.

On the first day of trial, the judge refused an application to vacate the trial so that the defence could seek facial-mapping evidence. Following the single judge’s refusal of leave, the applicant renewed his application. He also sought to rely on a still image of the perpetrator’s hand and his advocate’s proposed comparison of vein patterns and scarring.

The central issues were whether the refusal to adjourn was erroneous and whether the proposed hand evidence could render the conviction unsafe.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The conviction was not arguably unsafe.

2. The proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The advocate’s suggested comparison between the hand in the CCTV and the applicant’s hand was opinion evidence. He had no relevant expert qualification, and no photograph of the applicant’s hand had been provided for comparison. The evidence would therefore not have been admissible at trial.

3. There was also no reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce, or at least raise, that issue during the trial. It had not been raised before or during the evidence, nor while the jury were considering their verdict.

4. The trial judge had carefully balanced the application to adjourn. The identification issue was straightforward. The jury could assess good-quality CCTV footage, still images and a custody photograph taken shortly after the robbery, alongside the recognition evidence and the applicant’s account. The judge was entitled, and right, to conclude that facial-mapping evidence would add little and that the interests of justice did not require an adjournment.

5. The visual identification evidence was admissible and properly presented. The jury received full, careful and fair directions on its evaluation. Their verdict showed that they had no reasonable doubt that the applicant was the second robber.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Samuel Channell [2023] EWCA Crim 1183, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Single judge, Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the initial application for leave to appeal, prompting the renewed application.
• Crown Court at Southampton (sitting at Winchester): On 8 June 2022, a jury convicted the applicant of robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. On 22 July 2022, he was sentenced to three years’ immediate imprisonment.