R v James Peppiatt

Where a solicitor purports to give a defence statement, section 6E(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 deems it authorised unless the contrary is proved. A judge may therefore permit its use while directing the jury fairly on alleged defects in its preparation.

A summing-up need not compensate for a weak case. It must remain objective and impartial, identify the defence case, and leave factual conclusions to the jury. Detailed voting figures contained in a jury communication should ordinarily remain confidential. The Juries Act 1974 preserves limited exceptions connected with reaching or delivering a verdict. Article 6 ECHR does not require jury deliberations to be public.

The applicant was convicted by a majority of murder at the Central Criminal Court after Tony Eastlake was fatally stabbed following two confrontations. The prosecution alleged that the applicant brought and used a knife. The applicant said that the deceased produced the knife and that the fatal injury was inflicted while he acted in self-defence during a struggle.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant sought an extension of time and renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction. He challenged the use and treatment of an unsigned draft defence statement, remarks in the summing-up, the handling of pathological evidence, and the non-disclosure of a jury note containing voting information. The central issue was whether any of those matters rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The court refused the extension of time and the renewed application for leave to appeal. None of the grounds disclosed an arguable basis for finding the murder conviction unsafe.

2. Under section 6E(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, a defence statement purportedly given by an accused’s solicitor is deemed authorised unless the contrary is proved. That provision answered the objection to the statement’s use. The judge’s written directions were favourable to the applicant because they required the jury to disregard the statement if it might not fairly represent his instructions or had been filed contrary to them.

3. A judge must explain the law, identify the defence case, and review the essential evidence objectively and impartially. Applying Marchant [2018] EWCA Crim 2606, the court held that fairness does not require a judge to dilute strong evidence or reproduce every submission in the terms sought by a party. The judge’s question whether the applicant’s account could fit within the agreed 28-second period, his treatment of the eyewitness evidence, and his corrected account of the pathological evidence did not make the summing-up unfair.

4. The established practice, reflected in Gorman [1987] 85 Cr. App.R 121, permits a judge to withhold detailed voting figures disclosed in a jury communication. Sections 20D and 20E of the Juries Act 1974 protect the confidentiality of jury deliberations while allowing the limited disclosures needed for deliberation, case management, and delivery of a verdict. Article 6 ECHR guarantees a fair and public hearing and public pronouncement of judgment, but gives no right to public jury deliberations.

5. The court additionally advised that significant exchanges between counsel and judge conducted by email should be uploaded to the Digital Case System and normally summarised in open court, so that appellate review and open justice are not impaired.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction: [2025] EWCA Crim 110.
• Central Criminal Court — On 22 August 2023, HHJ Marks KC convicted the applicant of murder by a majority of 10 to 2.