Gold v Rex

The admission and presentation of CCTV evidence is a matter of trial case management. There is no fixed rule requiring footage to be withheld from a witness in examination-in-chief. The fairness of showing footage to a witness depends on the circumstances, including whether its content is disputed and whether the procedure creates a realistic forensic disadvantage.

A juror’s remote and disclosed acquaintance with a non-witness victim does not require questioning or discharge where a fair-minded and informed observer would see no real possibility of bias. An investigation direction under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23A is unnecessary where no issue requiring investigation arises.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Wood Green to numerous theft and driving offences. He was tried on six further counts arising from shop thefts in which staff alleged that he used or threatened force, sometimes with a knife or bladed article. He was convicted of three robberies and two offences of possessing an article with a blade or point.

His appeal against conviction challenged the prosecution’s use of CCTV footage while eyewitnesses gave evidence and the trial judge’s refusal to discharge a juror. The juror had disclosed that, about three years earlier, she had encountered the alleged victim of one robbery, a security guard who was not a witness. The appellant also sought a direction for an investigation under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23A.

Appeal dismissed. The convictions were safe.

1. There was no unfairness in allowing the prosecution to show CCTV footage to an eyewitness after he had given an account consistent with both his statement and the footage. The footage did not resolve the central issue, namely whether the appellant had threatened violence or possessed a bladed article. Defence counsel was able to cross-examine effectively and to use the footage to make the point that no weapon could clearly be seen.

2. The court nevertheless stressed that a prosecutor’s usual practice is not a principled answer to an objection. The presentation of CCTV is fact-sensitive and falls within the trial judge’s case-management powers. There is no hard-and-fast rule and no need for appellate guidance. A different conclusion might arise where the content of the footage was disputed or the procedure created real unfairness.

3. The judge was entitled to refuse to discharge the juror without further inquiry. Her disclosed connection with the security guard was slight, historic and transparent. He was not a witness, and the evidence concerning the robbery came from others. Applying the standard in the Criminal Practice Directions, a fair-minded and informed observer would not find a real possibility of bias.

4. As neither ground disclosed an issue requiring further investigation, the request for a direction under Criminal Appeal Act 1968 section 23A fell away.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In Gold v Rex, [2023] EWCA Crim 22, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and declined to direct a further investigation.
2. Crown Court at Wood Green — The appellant was convicted after trial of three robberies and two offences involving bladed articles, following guilty pleas to other theft and driving offences.