|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Inns, R. v  EWCA Crim 1081 (04 May 2018)
Cite as:  EWCA Crim 1081
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
London, WC2A 2LL
Friday, 4 May 2018
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE
THE RECORDER OF CARDIFF
HER HONOUR JUDGE REES QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
|R E G I N A|
165 Street London EC4A 2DY,
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: email@example.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Witcher appeared on behalf of Emma Inns
Ms H Guest appeared on behalf of the Crown
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE SINGH:
"If you are sure that one or both laptop hard drives might have contained material relevant to this investigation and that Gavin Inns wiped those hard drives with the intention of perverting the course of public justice by frustrating this investigation your verdict is guilty. If not sure your verdict is not guilty."
It is submitted by Mr Wainwright that the correct direction should have been along these lines:
"If you are sure that one or both laptops were used in the course of the fraud and therefore the hard drives might have contained material relevant to this investigation..."
It is submitted the manner in which the jury were directed not only erred in relation to the elements of the offence charged but also watered down or confused the direction which had been given in the usual way as to the standard of proof.
"The central question raised is whether the nature and frequency of the trial judge's interventions, combined with the deficiencies found by the Court of Appeal in his summing-up, were such as to render the proceedings against the applicant unfair. The Court recalls that, in determining issues of fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention, the Court must consider the proceedings as a whole, including the decision of the appellate court... "
The Court then went on to examine the facts of that particular case and noted that this court had found there to be "some substance" in the criticisms made of the conduct of the trial judge, but nevertheless had not felt the resulting conviction was unsafe. The Court said at paragraph 41:
" ... the Court attaches importance to the fact that the applicant's counsel was able to address the jury in a final speech which lasted for 45 minutes without interruption, apart from a brief intervention which was found to be justified, and that the substance of the applicant's defence was reiterated in the trial judge's summing-up, albeit in a very abbreviated form."
In those circumstances, as the court said at paragraph 42, it did not find that the judicial interventions in that case "although excessive and undesirable" had in fact rendered the trial proceedings as a whole unfair.
Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.