Introduction

The case of Stokes & Ors v The King ([2025] EWCA Crim 51) pertains to the convictions of Elijah Stokes, Craig Miller, and Connor Palmer for conspiracy to murder. The trial revolved around the use of encrypted communication platforms, specifically EncroChat, to orchestrate and execute acts of serious criminality. Key issues in the ensuing appeal included the admissibility of EncroChat-derived evidence, potential breaches of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016), and significant jury irregularities that raised questions about the fairness of the trial.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) upheld the convictions of all three applicants for conspiracy to murder. While the court dismissed most of the appeal grounds, it acknowledged arguable points regarding jury irregularities but ultimately found no miscarriage of justice. The court maintained the admissibility of the EncroChat evidence, ruling that it was lawfully intercepted and did not breach statutory provisions. Additionally, the court addressed issues related to the summing up of Elijah Stokes' case and corrected the minimum terms of imprisonment for Miller and Palmer.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that shaped the court’s decision:

• R v A, B, D and C [2021] EWCA Crim 128 and R v Atkinson [2021] EWCA Crim 1447: Established the admissibility of EncroChat material when intercepted from storage rather than transmission.
• SF v National Crime Agency [2023] UKIPTrib 3: Affirmed the legality of Targeted Equipment Interference (TEI) warrants.
• Case C-670/22, MN (EncroChat): European Court Grand Chamber decision emphasizing the accused's ability to challenge evidence effectively.
• Campbell v R [2024] UKPC 6: Clarified judges' discretion in handling jury irregularities and ensuring fair trials.
• Singh-Mann [2014] EWCA Crim 717: Highlighted the judge's duty to ensure a coherent rehearsal of defense arguments during summing up.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously examined the procedural aspects of evidence collection and jury conduct. Regarding evidence admissibility, the court affirmed that the EncroChat messages were lawfully intercepted from storage pursuant to IPA 2016 and that proper warrants were in place. The defense's attempts to challenge the evidence based on alleged breaches of the IPA were systematically rejected, reinforcing the legitimacy of joint investigation team (JIT) operations.

On the matter of jury irregularities, the court recognized the complexities in maintaining the integrity of the jury process. Despite concerns about juror Y's early discharge and subsequent interactions, the court deemed that the remaining jurors could still deliver a fair verdict. The judge's adherence to Criminal Practice Direction 26M and his balanced assessment of the allegations against the efficacy of the remaining jury members were pivotal in the court's decision to dismiss the appeals on this ground.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the use of encrypted communication evidence in criminal proceedings. By upholding the admissibility of EncroChat data, the court reinforces the validity of using seizure-based evidence from secure platforms in cases involving organized crime. Additionally, the handling of jury irregularities sets a precedent for future cases where jury conduct is called into question, emphasizing the court's role in ensuring trial fairness without unnecessarily disrupting the judicial process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

EncroChat and Evidence Admissibility

EncroChat was an encrypted communication platform used by criminals to plan and execute illicit activities. The legal debate centered on whether evidence obtained from EncroChat could be lawfully used in court. The court clarified that since the data was intercepted from storage (not during transmission) and proper warrants were obtained, its use as evidence was permissible.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016)

The IPA 2016 governs how authorities can intercept communications. Key provisions include:

• Section 4: Defines what constitutes interception-related conduct.
• Section 10: Restricts requests for assistance under mutual assistance agreements unless proper warrants are in place.
• Section 56: Prohibits evidence obtained unlawfully through interception-related conduct unless specific exceptions apply.

The court determined that the prosecution's use of EncroChat data complied with these provisions.

Jury Irregularities and Criminal Practice Directions

Jury irregularities refer to any misconduct or breaches of protocol by jury members during a trial. The court reviewed these in the context of Criminal Practice Direction 26M, which outlines procedures for addressing such issues. The judgment emphasized that while juror misconduct must be addressed to maintain trial integrity, not all irregularities warrant dismissing the entire jury.

Conclusion

The Stokes v The King [2025] EWCA Crim 51 judgment serves as a critical affirmation of the admissibility of encrypted communication evidence when obtained lawfully. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding robust investigative methods in combating organized crime while ensuring that trial fairness is meticulously preserved, even in the face of jury irregularities. The decision reinforces existing legal frameworks and provides clear guidance for future cases involving similar complexities, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of criminal law and evidence admissibility.