R v Joe Frizell & Anor

Applications for leave to appeal against conviction or sentence should be refused where the proposed ground is not arguable and the conviction is not arguably unsafe or the sentence manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Alleged jury irregularities arising from post-verdict statements will ordinarily be insufficient where jurors received clear directions, no concern was reported during the trial, and the material is weak or ambiguous. An inquiry into juror conduct is reserved for rare and exceptional cases supported by strong and compelling evidence. A summing-up is not unfair merely because it adopts a themed structure or reflects a strong prosecution case, provided it fairly presents the material issues and both sides’ cases. Differences between offenders do not establish disparity where distinct aggravating and mitigating features justify different sentences.

Following a seven-week trial at the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent, Joe Frizell was convicted of two offences of depositing controlled waste on land, contrary to section 33(1)(a) and section 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Raymond Bowden was convicted of operating a regulated facility without an environmental permit, contrary to regulations 12(1) and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010.

Frizell received two years’ imprisonment and Bowden 30 months’ imprisonment. Both sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. They also sought fresh-evidence orders and referral of alleged jury irregularities to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The central issues were whether the conviction grounds were arguable, whether the summing-up was unfair or defective, whether the jury allegations warranted investigation, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

The court refused the applications to adduce fresh evidence, refused referral of any issue to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and refused each application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

1. Jury irregularities. Clear directions concerning jurors’ collective responsibilities and the prompt reporting of concerns create a strong basis for assuming that no irregularity occurred where no concern was raised during the trial. Evidence from post-verdict conversations, particularly where delayed, vague, inconsistent or unsupported by other material, did not displace that assumption. The approach in R v Adams [2007] 1 Cr App R 34, R v Haji [2024] EWCA Crim 955, R v Lewis [2013] EWCA Crim 776 and R v Baybasin [2014] 1 Cr App R 19 was applied. The alleged pressure, predetermination and contact with a prosecution witness therefore did not justify an inquiry.
2. Verdict direction. An omission to explain the procedure for a possible majority verdict was an omission, but it did not render the convictions unsafe. The directions, read as a whole, did not require unanimity as the only permissible outcome. The jury did not indicate difficulty in reaching unanimous verdicts and returned unanimous verdicts. The evidence against both applicants was strong.
3. Summing-up. The Recorder’s themed approach, which dealt together with prosecution and defence evidence and submissions on each topic, was permissible. Read fairly and as a whole, the summing-up included the material points on both sides and did not descend into the arena or become an advocacy document for the prosecution. The principles in R v Digby [2020] EWCA Crim 1815 were applied.
4. Sentence. The offending involved category 1 harm and deliberate culpability, including hazardous material, serious environmental damage, prolonged offending, warnings by authorities and financial gain. The Recorder was entitled to sentence at the top of the guideline range. He properly considered health, mitigation, pre-sentence reports and the question of suspension. The different sentences for Frizell, Bowden and Paraszko reflected differences in culpability and mitigation and did not establish disparity.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence were refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1108. Applications to adduce fresh evidence and to refer alleged jury irregularities to the Criminal Cases Review Commission were also refused.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent: after trial, Frizell was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment; Bowden was convicted and sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.