Aaron Maddison v R

Where identification evidence has both strengths and weaknesses, a judge considering a submission of no case to answer must assess the evidence as a whole. The case should be withdrawn only if, taken at its highest, the evidence could not properly support a conviction by a properly directed jury. Weaknesses concerning recognition, clothing, gait or possible mistake will ordinarily remain for the jury where there is sufficient evidence of identification, including prior familiarity, opportunity for observation and supporting circumstances.

The applicant was convicted unanimously at Durham Crown Court of robbery after two masked and gloved men took approximately £4,800 from a fish and chip shop. The prosecution alleged that he was the robber carrying a metal bar.

At the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge rejected a submission of no case to answer. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction after a single judge refused permission. He contended that the identification evidence was so weak that the trial judge should have stopped the case.

The central issue was whether there was an arguable error in leaving the identification evidence for the jury.

Application for leave to appeal against conviction dismissed.

1. The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the second limb of R v Galbraith [1981] 2 All ER 160. The relevant question was whether, taking the prosecution evidence at its highest, a properly directed jury could properly convict. Where the force of the evidence depends on witness reliability and other matters ordinarily for a jury, the case should be left to it if one possible view of the facts permits conviction.
2. The court also held that the identification evidence was not of such weak quality that it should have been removed from the jury. The two identifying witnesses had seen the applicant enter the shop at least three times earlier that evening. During the robbery they were close to the robber, the lighting was good, their view was substantially unimpeded, the encounter lasted about 37 seconds and words were exchanged.
3. Discrepancies concerning clothing, colour, gait and the possibility that the witnesses associated the applicant with the co-accused were real weaknesses. They did not, however, require the judge to isolate and discount the prosecution’s stronger features. The evidence had to be assessed cumulatively, applying the identification guidance in R v Turnbull [1997] QB 224 together with the no-case test.
4. The jury could take account of the earlier encounters, the witnesses’ claimed recognition, the clothing evidence, and the circumstances said to create coincidences if the identification were mistaken. There was more than sufficient evidence safely to leave identification to the jury. The conviction was not arguably unsafe and no other compelling reason justified consideration by the full court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 816, dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — Refused the initial application for leave, holding that the identification evidence was capable of supporting a properly directed jury’s verdict.
• Crown Court at Durham — On 19 May 2023, rejected the submission of no case to answer and the applicant was convicted unanimously of robbery. On 18 October 2023, he was sentenced to 48 months’ imprisonment.