R v Saquab Hussain

A Lucas direction is not required whenever a defendant gives evidence which the jury may find to be untrue. It is required only where there is a danger that the jury may treat the finding of a lie as probative of guilt. In an ordinary case involving a straightforward conflict of evidence, directions on the burden and standard of proof may suffice. In an alibi case, the trial judge must exercise a contextual discretion, considering the precise issues, the risk of jury confusion and whether the direction would assist. A route to verdict may adequately protect the defendant by requiring the jury to decide identification and each element of the offence separately. A separate lies direction is unnecessary where it would add complexity, particularly alongside a direction under s.34 addressing failure to mention the alibi. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and, alternatively, found the conviction safe.

The appellant was convicted of rape at Bradford Crown Court on 5 December 2022 and later sentenced to seven years and six months' imprisonment. He appealed with permission limited to grounds alleging that the jury had not been properly directed about his alibi and that a Lucas direction should have been given if the alibi was rejected. The prosecution relied on the complainant's identification and other supporting evidence, while the defence relied on mistaken identity and an alibi that the appellant said placed him in Pakistan on the relevant dates. The trial judge gave a route to verdict requiring the jury to be sure of identification before considering the elements of the offence, and gave a direction under s.34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. The central issue was whether those directions were sufficient and whether a separate lies direction was required.

1. Appeal dismissed. The route to verdict sufficiently guarded against conviction based solely or mainly on a finding that the appellant had lied about his alibi. The jury had first to be sure of correct identification, which required them to reject the alibi, and then had separately to be sure that the elements of the offence were proved. The direction also reminded them that the prosecution bore the burden of proof throughout.
2. A Lucas direction is not required in every case where a defendant may have lied. It is required only where there is a danger that the jury may regard the conclusion that the defendant lied as probative of guilt. In an ordinary case where an innocent explanation is being assessed, the general directions on burden and standard of proof will usually suffice. An alibi may be an appropriate context for considering a lies direction, but the decision remains fact-sensitive. The court reaffirmed the approach in R v Burge, R v Pegg ([1996] 1 Cr App R 163), with the approach illustrated by R v Harron ([1996] 2 Cr App R 457) and R v LW ([2018] EWCA Crim 1986).
3. Following R v Wainwright ([2021] EWCA Crim 122), the judge must decide whether to give a lies direction, a direction under s.34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, or both, having regard to the context and the precise issues in the case. A separate lies direction was not required here. The appellant had not requested one at trial; it risked undermining the defence; the late production of supporting alibi evidence formed part of the trial dynamics; and the s.34 direction already warned the jury not to use the failure to mention the alibi as the sole or main basis for conviction. An additional direction risked confusion. The court also considered R v Lesley ([1996] 1 Cr App R 39), where a lies direction had been necessary on the particular facts.
4. The summing-up left the case to the jury straightforwardly and without unnecessary complication. The court also held, in any event, that the conviction was safe because the evidence, including several strands supporting the complainant's identification, was cogent and the case was strong. Any omission to give a lies direction would not have affected the outcome.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appellant was convicted at Bradford Crown Court on 5 December 2022 and sentenced on 13 October 2023. The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, holding that the jury directions were adequate and, alternatively, that the conviction was safe.