R v Joseph Raymond Annette-Norman

A section 34 direction is unnecessary where a defendant’s prepared statement clearly sets out the defence and the prosecution does not rely on omissions from it. A short direction that the jury should not hold no-comment answers against the defendant may nevertheless be preferable. Its absence does not make convictions unsafe where the defendant’s trial account is consistent and no material matter was withheld. Jury directions on rape must make clear that the prosecution must prove intentional penetration, absence of consent and absence of a reasonable belief in consent to the criminal standard. Ingredients need not be set out in separate sub-paragraphs if the directions, read as a whole, are clear.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Plymouth of two counts of rape and acquitted of a third. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years less one day’s imprisonment. His renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction challenged the absence of a direction concerning his no-comment police interview and the clarity of the directions on consent, reasonable belief in consent, and the burden and standard of proof.

At trial, the applicant relied on a prepared statement, gave evidence consistently with it, and was cross-examined. The prosecution did not seek a section 34 direction. The Court of Appeal considered whether the directions, viewed as a whole, were adequate and whether any omission rendered the convictions unsafe.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

1. No-comment interview. The applicant’s prepared statement clearly set out his defence, and his account at trial very largely reflected it. The prosecution had not sought a section 34 direction, and neither had defence counsel. In those circumstances, a full specimen direction was wholly unnecessary. It would arguably have been preferable to tell the jury briefly that the applicant had not relied at trial on any material matter which he might have mentioned in the prepared statement, and that they should not hold the no-comment answers against him. The failure to give that additional direction did not render the convictions unsafe.
2. Directions on rape. The judge’s route to verdict required the jury to decide each count separately and to be sure both that the alleged conduct occurred and that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant did not reasonably believe she consented. The written directions defined rape by reference to intentional penetration, absence of consent and absence of reasonable belief in consent. The judge also directed the jury clearly on the burden and criminal standard of proof at the end of the summing-up.
3. The omission of burden and standard of proof from the written directions was unfortunate but was corrected orally. The judge’s directions, read together with the written directions, route to verdict and oral summing-up, adequately identified each ingredient which the prosecution had to prove. The ingredients did not need to be divided into separate sub-paragraphs. The verdicts, including the acquittal on the third count, were consistent with the jury having understood the directions.

• Crown Court at Plymouth: The applicant was convicted on two counts of rape on 22 June 2022 and sentenced on 8 September 2022 to concurrent terms of four years less one day’s imprisonment. He was acquitted on a third count.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The single judge refused leave to appeal on 9 December 2022. The renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 11 July 2023.