EAC v R

After a jury has retired, the court may provide further information where the interests of justice require. The default remains that evidence is given during the parties’ cases, and the power is reserved for rare situations. Relevant safeguards include that the information answers the jury’s question, is neutral or incontrovertible, and does not disadvantage the defendant. An offender may be sentenced only for proven offending within the charged period. Earlier circumstances may explain the victim’s vulnerability, but cannot enlarge the offending. Repeated acts can amount to multiple incidents of serious cruelty and deliberate disregard for welfare. Harm may fall within the highest guideline category where serious developmental or physical harm is established. Limited duration and substantial mitigation may require a downward adjustment.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Woolwich of two offences of cruelty to a person under 16 and received concurrent sentences of four years and six months’ imprisonment. She challenged her convictions on the grounds that the judge had given the jury information after retirement which had not been adduced in evidence, and that the judge’s interventions created an appearance of hostility to the defence. She also challenged the sentence as excessive, relying on the duration of the offending, the categorisation of culpability and harm, and personal mitigation. The central issues were whether the convictions were unsafe and whether the sentence properly reflected the proven offending and mitigation.

1. Disposition. Leave to appeal against conviction was refused. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, the sentences were quashed, and concurrent sentences of three years’ imprisonment were substituted.

2. Information given after jury retirement. Applying R v Dunster [2021] EWCA Crim 1555, the court confirmed that there is no inflexible rule preventing further information being given to a jury after retirement. The judge must consider what the interests of justice require, giving particular weight to any real possibility of prejudice caused by the defendant’s inability to address the material in evidence or closing submissions. The default remains that evidence is adduced during the parties’ cases, and late information will ordinarily be justified only rarely.

3. The judge’s answer to the jury was materially correct and incontrovertible. It accurately identified the medical material available to the expert and did not undermine the defence’s ability to rely on the limits of her knowledge. The appellant was therefore not disadvantaged. The alleged judicial interventions had to be assessed by their overall effect; even assuming the descriptions of tone and manner were accurate, the examples did not show that the jury’s view of the evidence or the fairness of the trial had been prejudiced.

4. Sentence. The appellant could be sentenced only for the proven offending within the charged period. C’s condition on admission was relevant to her frailty and vulnerability, but could not enlarge the offending. Category B culpability was justified because the repeated acts amounted to multiple incidents of serious cruelty and involved deliberate disregard for C’s welfare. Category 1 harm was also available because the failure to take nutrition and gain weight constituted serious developmental or physical harm. However, the comparatively short duration of the offending required an initial reduction from the six-year starting point to four years and six months. After the substantial mitigation already allowed, the proper total sentence was three years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2025] EWCA Crim 1135, leave to appeal against conviction was refused. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, the sentences were quashed, and concurrent three-year sentences were substituted.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — The appellant was convicted of two offences of cruelty to a person under 16 and sentenced to concurrent terms of four years and six months’ imprisonment.