R v PHN

A party served with an SFR1 forensic summary must respond promptly, identifying the conclusions admitted and the disputed issues concerning any conclusions not admitted. A request for photographs does not fulfil that obligation. A case management order cannot supply the actual agreement required to admit disputed evidence as agreed fact.

The court gave guidance that, where the defence refuses an admission after failing to respond, the appropriate prosecutorial course is an application under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Admissibility must be assessed against the interests of justice, all relevant circumstances and trial fairness. The court expressed no view on whether such an application should succeed.

PHN and a co-defendant stood trial in the Crown Court on two burglary counts. The prosecution sought to rely on an SFR1 comparing footwear impressions recovered from the scene of the second burglary with PHN’s trainers. The summary provided moderate support for the conclusion that some impressions had been made by those trainers.

A judge extended the defence’s deadline for notifying any objection and recorded that the summary would otherwise be agreed. The defence requested photographs but notified no objection. At trial, it nevertheless refused the proposed admission. The Recorder excluded the summary and subsequently upheld a submission of no case to answer on PHN’s second count.

The prosecution sought leave to appeal under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, bringing the earlier evidential rulings within its appeal. It contended that the excluded evidence was admissible and that the remaining evidence was sufficient in any event. The published judgment omits the detailed evidence and reasoning concerning sufficiency.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed. The court’s decision on the sufficiency of the evidence required PHN’s second burglary count to proceed to trial. The edited judgment does not disclose the detailed reasoning on that issue. The trial was directed to take place as soon as it sensibly could be arranged before a Circuit Judge (paras 1, 32 and 38).

2. In guidance unnecessary to the disposition, the court explained that an SFR1 was a summary of expert conclusions used to seek admissions under the Criminal Procedure Rules. The required defence response identified whether conclusions were admitted and the issues concerning any disputed conclusions. A response disputing the summary triggered the prosecution’s preparation of a full expert report. The streamlined procedure avoided that expense where the conclusions were undisputed (paras 18–20 and 35).

   The defence’s failure to respond was a significant breach of its duty to the court. Neither its statement at the earlier hearing nor its request for photographs mitigated that failure. The breach had placed the defence in a more advantageous position than timely compliance would have produced (paras 23 and 35).

3. The court recognised the distinction between procedural default and actual agreement. It knew of no authority permitting evidence to be admitted as agreed evidence when the objecting party refused the necessary admission. There was force in the Recorder’s view that the earlier case management order could not convert an unagreed summary into admissible agreed evidence (para 36).

4. The appropriate prosecutorial course in that situation was an application to admit the summary as hearsay under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Failure to challenge the evidence despite an opportunity and a court order could bear on the interests of justice. Every application nevertheless required consideration of all relevant circumstances and trial fairness. The court indicated no likely outcome and did not decide admissibility in this case. The prosecution could obtain a full report before the further trial, making it unnecessary to determine how the Recorder should have addressed the summary (paras 37–38).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 1279 , granted the prosecution leave to appeal, allowed the appeal against the no-case ruling concerning PHN’s second burglary count and directed a further trial before a Circuit Judge. The admissibility of the SFR1 was left undetermined.
• Crown Court: The Recorder excluded the footwear SFR1 and made another evidential ruling. In February 2026, he upheld no-case submissions on both counts against the co-defendant and on the second count against PHN. The prosecution gave the statutory acquittal undertaking. The Recorder refused leave to appeal and discharged the jury on 27 February 2026.