Zarezadeh v REGINA

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, employed as a prison officer at Company A, was convicted at the Crown Court at The City on 13th November 2009 for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply. The drugs found included heroin and cannabis variants. The Appellant claimed duress, asserting he was coerced through threats against his family to supply drugs to an inmate identified as Prisoner A. The prosecution disputed this, arguing the Appellant was willingly involved and that the pressure he claimed was within the scope of ordinary job stress manageable through official channels. The Appellant’s home was searched, and cash was seized. An anonymous note had previously suggested a prisoner might be blackmailing the Appellant.

The appeal arose from concerns regarding the trial judge’s interventions during cross-examination of the Appellant, specifically whether these interventions rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe. Leave to appeal against conviction was granted by the Full Court, while the application for leave to appeal against sentence was adjourned.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's interventions during the prosecution's cross-examination of the Appellant were such as to render the trial unfair.
2. Whether these interventions resulted in the convictions being unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge intervened excessively during cross-examination, effectively cross-examining the Appellant himself.
• The nature and timing of interventions gave the jury the impression that the judge disbelieved the Appellant’s defence.
• The judge’s conduct compromised the fairness of the trial and rendered the verdicts unsafe.
• Concerns were also raised about the judge’s non-verbal conduct, specifically eye contact with a prosecution witness, which may have indicated bias.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The judge’s interventions were aimed at clarifying evidence for the benefit of the jury and did not affect the fairness of the trial.
• The Appellant was a trained prison officer who could have used proper channels to address any pressure, negating the duress defence.
• The judge’s tone was proper, brisk, and businesslike, and did not demonstrate bias.
• There was no independent evidence supporting the Appellant’s claim of threats and coercion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the judge intervened multiple times during the prosecution’s cross-examination of the Appellant, sometimes effectively conducting cross-examination himself. These interventions included pointed questioning on key issues central to the defence of duress, such as inconsistencies relating to threats and damage to property. The court reviewed transcripts and audio recordings, noting that the judge’s tone was stiffer with the Appellant than with prosecution witnesses but was not overtly biased.

Despite recognizing that the judge “descended into the arena” on several occasions, the court found that the interventions did not prevent defence counsel from fulfilling his role nor the Appellant from presenting his case in examination in chief. The court applied established legal principles from Hulusi and Purvis and subsequent cases, focusing on whether the judge’s conduct invited the jury to disbelieve the defence in a way that could not be remedied by jury directions.

While the interventions were unfortunate and contrary to expectations of judicial conduct, the court concluded that they did not cross the threshold of unfairness requiring quashing of convictions. The judge’s questioning was aimed at elucidation rather than discrediting the Appellant’s evidence beyond permissible limits. The court distinguished this case from more serious instances of judicial intervention in the cited precedents.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS the appeal against conviction.

This decision means the convictions stand, and the trial judge’s interventions, while regrettable, did not render the trial unfair or the verdicts unsafe. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirms the application of established principles governing judicial conduct and fairness in criminal trials.