Wheeler ,R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 25th June 1999 at the Crown Court at Croydon of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the importation of approximately one kilogram of cocaine. He was sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. The drugs were discovered at Gatwick Airport concealed in two socks inside a briefcase within the Appellant’s holdall, as well as internally within his body. The Appellant was arrested and later excreted additional packages under supervision. The key issue at trial was whether the Appellant had knowledge that he was carrying the drugs.

During the trial, evidence was presented including the Appellant’s interview with customs officers, his prior interactions with police regarding pressures to act as a drug courier, and forensic analysis of the drugs. The Appellant’s defence was that he was under duress and denied knowledge of the drugs in his luggage, though he acknowledged awareness of the drugs concealed internally in an earlier defence statement. The defence also detailed a history of threats and violence from an individual identified as a drug dealer, which allegedly compelled the Appellant to carry the drugs.

A significant procedural complication arose from a discrepancy between the defence statement, served by the Appellant’s solicitors before trial, and the evidence given by the Appellant at trial. The defence statement admitted knowledge of the internally concealed drugs, whereas the Appellant’s testimony denied such knowledge at the time of importation. This discrepancy was exploited by the prosecution in cross-examination, but no leave was sought to comment on it during closing arguments. The trial judge made limited references to the discrepancy in the summing-up without providing the jury with detailed directions regarding its significance.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the conviction was safe in light of the discrepancy between the defence statement and the Appellant’s oral evidence regarding knowledge of the drugs.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in failing to provide adequate directions to the jury concerning the contradictory defence evidence.
3. Whether the procedural handling of the defence statement and cross-examination on discrepancies complied with the requirements of the Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act 1996.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The defence argued that the discrepancy between the defence statement and the Appellant’s evidence was due to an error by the original solicitors and was contrary to the Appellant’s instructions.
• The Appellant maintained that he was unaware of the drugs concealed internally at the time of importation and that any apparent admissions in the defence statement were mistaken.
• It was submitted that the jury should have been properly directed to accept that the defence statement contained a mistake, as the failure to do so prejudiced the Appellant’s credibility and the safety of the conviction.
• The defence highlighted that the Appellant was drowsy and confused during the interview, which affected his understanding and responses.
• It was also argued that the Appellant was under duress and that this was central to his defence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution relied on the Appellant’s admissions in interview acknowledging the presence of cocaine and his failure to deny knowledge of the drugs in the socks.
• They cross-examined the Appellant on the discrepancy between his defence statement and oral evidence to challenge his credibility.
• The prosecution did not seek leave to comment on the discrepancy during closing submissions and did not pursue the matter further in summing-up.
• They did not dispute that the defence statement was served on the Appellant’s behalf by solicitors and that the discrepancy arose from an error by them.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the impact of the discrepancy between the defence statement and the Appellant’s oral evidence, noting that the defence statement was served by solicitors and was contrary to the Appellant’s instructions and evidence. The court acknowledged that the discrepancy was central to the issue of the Appellant’s credibility, which was crucial given the nature of the case.

The court observed that neither defence counsel nor prosecution counsel sought judicial guidance or leave to comment on the discrepancy during closing submissions, and the trial judge only made limited references to it without further direction to the jury. The court expressed concern that the jury was likely to have taken the discrepancy against the Appellant without proper guidance, thereby prejudicing his defence.

While the case against the Appellant was strong, the court concluded that the failure to address the discrepancy adequately undermined the safety of the conviction. The court also reflected on the procedural issue of defence statements not being signed by defendants, noting that requiring a signature could prevent such errors and disputes.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial, directing that the Appellant be re-arraigned within two months and that the trial be scheduled to accommodate defence counsel of the Appellant’s choice.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a retrial was ordered.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Appellant’s conviction is set aside due to concerns about the safety of the conviction arising from procedural and evidential issues related to the defence statement and its handling at trial. A fresh indictment is to be preferred, and the Appellant will be re-arraigned and tried anew. No new legal precedent was established, but the court highlighted the practical importance of obtaining signed defence statements to avoid similar issues in future cases.