202400718 B1 - [2025] EWCA Crim 959

Fecha: 23-Jul-2025

Grounds of Appeal

Grounds of Appeal

23.

The appellant, by Mr Rasiah KC and Mr Rosenberg, his counsel at trial and in this Court, advances a single ground of appeal that the judge failed to direct the jury adequately regarding their approach to confession evidence in the prison calls. That ground is supported by a skeleton argument dated 25 May 2025 (lodged since the grant of leave by the Full Court) in which it is submitted that the direction was deficient in three material respects:

That it failed to identify the correct test for the jury to apply. The issue was not whether what was said was reliable and true, but whether the statements were obtained in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render such admissions unreliable.

That it failed to identify the appropriate burden and standard of proof: the jury should have been directed to consider whether the admissions were or may have been so obtained.

That it failed to direct the jury that if they found the admissions may have been so obtained (that is, in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render them unreliable) the jury should give them no weight and disregard them entirely.

24.

The Crown, by Mr Emlyn Jones KC and Mr Ratliff, who prosecuted below and appear in this Court, resist this appeal. They have lodged a Respondent’s Notice and a more recent skeleton argument dated 9 June 2025. They argue that the judge correctly and sufficiently directed the jury; and that in any event this conviction is safe.

25.

We are grateful to all counsel for the assistance they have given the Court.