R v Renee Samara Cox

A defence witness’s exculpatory account does not retrospectively remove a case to answer. If the prosecution evidence could support a conviction, the jury must assess that account with the totality of the evidence. An appellate court does not re-try factual issues or second-guess a jury’s verdict. A summing-up must remind the jury of the essence of the defence, but perfection is unnecessary if the directions and evidential summary, read as a whole, adequately present the issues. Calling a firearms offence one of strict liability is unhelpful, but it is not necessarily a misdirection where the directions correctly explain possession and the separate requirement of an intention to endanger life. A statutory minimum sentence may be avoided only in truly exceptional circumstances; personal mitigation and limited possession did not satisfy that threshold.

The Applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon on firearms and ammunition offences. Counts 6 and 7 were decided by a majority of 11 to 1, and counts 8 and 9 unanimously. She received concurrent sentences totalling five years’ imprisonment, including sentences for offences under the Firearms Act 1968.

She made an application out of time for leave to appeal against conviction and a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The conviction grounds concerned the case to answer, body-worn video evidence, jury directions and the summing-up. The sentence application argued that exceptional circumstances justified avoiding the statutory minimum. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe and whether the sentence was arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Disposition. The court granted the extension of time, refused leave to appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Time and case to answer. The time for applying for leave began on the date of conviction. The later uploading of reasons or the indictment did not postpone the start of time. An extension was nevertheless granted because the delay was attributable to the Applicant’s representatives and the court considered it appropriate to examine the applications on their merits.
2. A submission of no case to answer was properly rejected. There had been a case to answer at the close of the prosecution evidence. The subsequent evidence of the co-defendant, although supportive of the defence, did not remove that case. It was for the jury to assess his evidence, including its inconsistencies, together with the totality of the evidence.
3. Directions and summing-up. The phrase strict liability was unhelpful, but the directions, read as a whole, adequately explained the relevant elements. They addressed possession of the firearm or ammunition and the separate requirement of an intention to behave in a way which, to the Defendant’s knowledge, would endanger life. An intention to kill was not required. The trial judge was also required to remind the jury of the essence of the defence, but the omission of a separate full summary did not make the convictions unsafe because the Applicant’s account, the co-defendant’s evidence and the relevant cross-examination had been sufficiently placed before the jury.
4. The remaining complaints substantially challenged the jury’s factual conclusions. Questions of possession, credibility and intention were quintessentially matters for the jury. The Court of Appeal would not second-guess the verdict, and the convictions were safe.
5. Sentence. The statutory minimum applied in the circumstances. Departure from it required truly exceptional circumstances. The Applicant’s age, previous good character, limited period of possession, the firearm’s condition and other personal mitigation did not meet that threshold. In any event, after considering the aggravating and mitigating features, a sentence of at least five years’ imprisonment was necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Single Judge refused leave against sentence and referred the conviction application, including Ground 2, to the Full Court. The Full Court granted an extension of time but refused leave to appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for leave against sentence: [2024] EWCA Crim 892.
2. Crown Court at Croydon: The Applicant was convicted on 1 March 2023 and sentenced by Ms Recorder Harden-Frost on 5 May 2023 to five years’ imprisonment.