R v Joshua Gareth White

A conviction is unsafe only where an allegedly inaccurate, incomplete or unbalanced summing up or response to a jury question created unfairness sufficient to undermine its safety. A judge is not ordinarily required to give a legal direction on an evidential discrepancy which was available for cross-examination and addressed in closing speeches.

When jurors seek a reminder of evidence, the judge must assist them but retains discretion as to the appropriate form of response. The general rule is to answer the question asked. Re-reading a complainant’s relevant evidence may be fair where the jury also receive the relevant cross-examination. Further repetition of the defendant’s evidence, the burden and standard of proof, or a warning appropriate to replaying a video is not automatically required.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Swindon of sexual assault of a child under 13 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The prosecution relied principally on the child complainant’s recorded Achieving Best Evidence interview and evidence of her complaints. The defence denied that any assault occurred.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the judge’s treatment of an alleged earlier incident, arguing that the summing up omitted a material discrepancy in the complainant’s accounts. He also challenged the judge’s response to a jury request to hear the part of her interview concerning the alleged assault. The central issue was whether the summing up and response rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court was satisfied that the conviction was safe.

2. The complainant’s addition in her recorded interview of an allegation not previously made was a discrepancy capable of bearing on reliability. The defence could explore it in cross-examination and rely on it in closing. The mode of cross-examination under Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 28, did not inhibit that course. The trial judge was not required to give a legal direction on the point.

3. The judge’s short summary of the evidence was fair and accurate when read as a whole. He had made clear that it was only a summary, the defence had recently addressed the discrepancy in closing, and counsel confirmed that nothing material had been omitted when invited to do so.

4. A jury was entitled to assistance with the evidence about which it had asked. The judge should not have rejected the request altogether, but retained discretion as to the method of answering it. Although a fuller summary followed by a request for a more specific question might have been preferable, reading the relevant transcript was not unfair. It gave the jury a complete and accurate account of the complainant’s evidence in chief and of the relevant section 28 cross-examination.

5. The court treated R v Rawlings and Broadbent [1995] 2 Cr App R 222 as helpful guidance on maintaining fairness when evidence is repeated. Its specific guidance concerning replay of a video recording did not directly govern the reading of a transcript. On the facts, fairness did not require a further summary of the appellant’s evidence, a renewed direction on the burden and standard of proof, or a warning against disproportionate weight.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 426.
• Crown Court at Swindon: The appellant was convicted on 29 February 2024 of sexual assault of a child under 13 and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.