REGINA v Lewis

Factual and Procedural Background

On 10 April 2013 at Camberwell Magistrates' Court, the Appellant was committed to the Crown Court for trial on one charge of attempted theft. Two charges of common assault, founded on the same facts as the attempted theft, were joined in the indictment pursuant to section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. On 22 May 2013 at the Inner London Crown Court before Judge Burn, the Appellant was arraigned on an indictment containing three counts: attempted theft (count 1), common assault on the Shopkeeper (count 2), and common assault on Police Constable (count 3). The Appellant pleaded not guilty, and following the Crown offering no evidence on count 1, a formal verdict of not guilty was entered on that count.

Due to listing difficulties, the trial on counts 2 and 3 was scheduled at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Joseph QC on 18 September 2013. Prior to trial, the judge considered whether the jury could be put in charge of an indictment containing "summary only" charges. The defence argued the indictment was invalid and the trial could not proceed, but the judge rejected this submission. On 20 September 2013, the Appellant was convicted of common assault on the Shopkeeper (count 2) and acquitted of assault on the Police Constable (count 3). The Appellant now appeals the conviction on count 2, contending the indictment was a nullity due to the judge's pre-trial ruling. The appeal was granted leave by a single judge.

The factual background is that on 10 August 2012, two police officers attended a local shop following a call from the Shopkeeper. The Crown alleged the Appellant, intoxicated, attempted to steal alcohol without paying (count 1), assaulted the Shopkeeper by punching him (count 2), and later assaulted a police officer during arrest (count 3). The Appellant denied being drunk, denied assaulting the Shopkeeper, and denied assaulting the officer, though he accepted he may have touched the officer during the incident.

The jury was tasked with determining the facts on each count. They acquitted the Appellant on count 3 and convicted on count 2. The Appellant's appeal challenges the Crown Court's jurisdiction to try the assault charges after the not guilty verdict on the attempted theft charge, asserting the indictment was invalid.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Crown Court retained jurisdiction to try summary offences joined to an indictable offence once the indictable offence count was dismissed or resulted in a not guilty verdict following the Crown offering no evidence.
2. Whether the indictment remained valid and effective for the trial of remaining counts after one count was formally acquitted prior to trial.
3. Whether the procedural handling of the indictment, including the jury being put in charge of summary-only charges, was lawful under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to try the two assault charges after the formal not guilty verdict on the attempted theft charge, which was founded on the same facts.
• The indictment was no longer valid once the Crown offered no evidence on the indictable offence and the formal verdict was entered.
• Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires the defendant to be put in charge of a jury on at least one indictable offence from the outset for the indictment to be valid.

Respondent's Arguments

• The indictment was properly preferred, signed, and remained valid throughout the proceedings.
• The procedural course following the formal verdict on one count did not remove that count from the indictment.
• Section 40 of the 1988 Act is concerned with the stage of indictment preparation and does not require retrospective invalidation due to a not guilty verdict on one count.
• The jury could properly be put in charge of the remaining summary charges, and the conviction was safe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Bird [1996] RTR 22	Validity of joining summary offences to indictable offences in the same indictment; Crown Court's jurisdiction to try summary offences despite acquittal on indictable charge.	The court confirmed that once properly joined, a count remains part of the indictment and the Crown Court retains jurisdiction to try and sentence on remaining counts despite acquittal on another.
R v Plant [2008] 2 Cr App R 27	Section 40 as a procedural provision; indictment remains valid despite no case to answer or acquittal on indictable offence; summary offences do not need to be withdrawn or retried in magistrates' court.	The court held that the indictment remains in proper form and the jury may return verdicts on remaining counts; the not guilty verdict does not amend or invalidate the indictment.
R v Iqbal [2012] EWCA Crim 766	Section 40 allows inclusion of summary offences with indictable offences; acquittal on indictable offence does not retrospectively invalidate inclusion of summary offence; amendment of indictment allowed if conditions met.	The court applied the principle that an acquittal on one count does not remove jurisdiction over the summary offence; the indictment remains valid and the jury can be charged accordingly.
R v Hodges (unreported, 5 June 1981)	Requirement for a valid signed indictment before a criminal trial can start.	Confirmed that the indictment in the instant case was validly preferred and signed, thus permitting the trial to proceed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming that the indictment was properly preferred, signed, and valid in form and content. The fact that the Crown offered no evidence on the indictable offence (attempted theft) and a formal not guilty verdict was entered did not remove that count from the indictment. The indictment remained the governing document throughout the trial.

The court analysed section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which permits summary offences to be joined with indictable offences in the same indictment if founded on the same facts or evidence. The court emphasised that section 40 is procedural and relates to the stage of indictment preparation, not to the effect of subsequent verdicts on the indictment's validity.

The court reviewed relevant case law, notably R v Bird, R v Plant, and R v Iqbal, which consistently support the principle that an acquittal or no case to answer on an indictable offence does not invalidate the indictment or remove jurisdiction over joined summary offences. The indictment remains valid and the Crown Court may proceed to try and convict on remaining counts.

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the indictment was a nullity because the jury was put in charge of summary-only charges after the formal acquittal on the indictable count. The court found no statutory or purposive basis to hold that jurisdiction depended on the defendant being put in charge of a jury on at least one indictable offence from the outset.

Accordingly, the court held that the indictment was valid, the trial and conviction on the common assault count were proper, and the appeal lacked substantive merit.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court's decision confirms that an indictment properly preferred and signed remains valid throughout the trial, even if one or more counts are acquitted or formally dismissed during proceedings. The Crown Court retains jurisdiction to try summary offences joined under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, regardless of the status of indictable offences in the same indictment. This ruling upholds procedural efficiency and avoids unnecessary retrials in magistrates' courts. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles, and the direct effect is that the Appellant's conviction for common assault stands.