R v Narinder Kaur

A conviction may be unsafe where judicial interventions so disturb the trial process that it becomes unfair, regardless of the strength of the evidence. Proper interventions to control proceedings, clarify questions, protect privilege and require disciplined answers do not, without more, establish bias. A summing-up must be assessed as a whole. A route to verdict need not adopt wording later proposed by the defence where the directions clearly identify the offence and the defence case, and there is no realistic prospect of jury misunderstanding. An acknowledged procedural irregularity will not make a conviction unsafe unless it affects the safety of the conviction.

The applicant was convicted at Gloucester Crown Court of multiple counts of fraud, transferring criminal property, conspiracy to commit fraud, perverting the course of public justice and possessing criminal property. Permission to appeal against conviction was refused on the papers by Sir Nigel Davies. The applicant renewed the application and sought to add a ground concerning the route to verdict.

The grounds concerned alleged judicial bias, interventions during the trial, defects in the summing-up, several evidential and procedural rulings, the use of voir dire material in cross-examination, and alleged pressure on the jury. The central issues were whether any error or irregularity rendered the convictions unsafe and whether the proposed additional ground was arguable.

The court refused the application to amend the grounds and the renewed application for permission to appeal. The grounds were unarguable, although the court agreed that prosecution counsel should not have introduced voir dire material into cross-examination before the jury.

1. Judicial interventions. The court applied the principle derived from R v Tedjame-Mortty [2011] EWCA Crim 950, R v Lashley [2005] EWCA Crim 2016, R v Hulusi (1974) 58 Cr App R 378, R v Zarazadeh [2011] EWCA Crim 271, R v Mustafa and Mustafa [2020] EWCA Crim 1723, R v Bryant [2005] EWCA Crim 2079 and R v Tarik Hill [2021] EWCA Crim 587. Interventions can make a conviction unsafe when they so disturb the trial process that it becomes unfair. On the facts, the trial judge’s interventions were civil, justified and directed to controlling the proceedings, protecting privilege and obtaining disciplined answers. They did not demonstrate bias or hostility.
2. Directions and route to verdict. The summing-up had to be read as a whole. It correctly identified the three stages of the alleged fraud and adequately explained the defence that the applicant had not stolen goods and had acted lawfully. The distinction between theft simpliciter and the fraud offences was unobjectionable. R v Gabbai [2019] EWCA Crim 2287 was distinguishable because the route to verdict there omitted an essential reference to intentional penetration. Any deficiency in the present route to verdict would not have rendered the convictions unsafe in light of the clear directions.
3. Other grounds. The trial judge’s rulings on severance, no case to answer, bad character, receipts, disclosure, late peripheral evidence and the section 34 direction were discretionary or evaluative decisions properly open to him. Under section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the applicant bore the burden of disproving the relevant previous convictions on the balance of probabilities. The omission of a direction on burden and standard did not create an arguable ground.
4. The improper use of voir dire material did not undermine the safety of the convictions. There was no undue pressure on the jury, and the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming. The applications were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the application to amend the grounds and the renewed application for permission to appeal; [2024] EWCA Crim 795.
• Single judge: Sir Nigel Davies refused permission to appeal on the papers.
• Gloucester Crown Court: convicted the applicant of the offences identified in the judgment.