Regina v Inns

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns two appeals against conviction brought with permission of a single judge. The appellants, a married couple referred to as Appellant A and Appellant B, were convicted at the Crown Court at Canterbury on multiple counts including false accounting, cheating the public revenue, fraudulent evasion of VAT, and perverting the course of public justice. The convictions arose from a prosecution alleging a series of fraudulent mortgage applications and VAT frauds involving falsified documents and invoices, as well as the wiping of computer hard drives potentially containing relevant evidence.

Appellant A was convicted of two counts of false accounting and one count of perverting the course of public justice, with suspended prison sentences and a curfew order imposed. Appellant B was convicted of three counts of false accounting, cheating the public revenue, and fraudulent evasion of VAT, receiving a total custodial sentence and a director disqualification order. The appellants denied knowing involvement in the falsification, attributing responsibility to Appellant B's father and a purported godmother figure, and contended an honest belief in the truthfulness of documents they signed. The trial included extensive evidence from various witnesses, including Appellant B's father who denied involvement and the existence of the alleged godmother.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury on the elements and standard of proof for the offence of perverting the course of public justice relating to the wiping of computer hard drives (count 6).
2. Whether the extent of judicial intervention during Appellant B's evidence-in-chief rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe.
3. Whether the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment was unreasonable.
4. Whether the judge impermissibly invited the jury to compare handwriting samples.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant A's Arguments

• The jury was misdirected regarding the mental and physical elements of the offence of perverting the course of justice, particularly in relation to whether the laptops were used in the fraud.
• The judge's extensive questioning of Appellant B during her evidence-in-chief amounted to impermissible intervention, creating an unfair trial.
• Appellant A's convictions depended heavily on Appellant B's evidence; if her convictions were unsafe, his should be quashed as well.

Appellant B's Arguments

• The refusal to adjourn the trial was Wednesbury unreasonable given the health condition of a key witness.
• The trial judge improperly invited the jury to compare handwriting samples, which was beyond permissible limits.
• The judge's extensive intervention during her evidence-in-chief rendered the convictions unsafe.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the alleged misdirection on the offence of perverting the course of public justice (count 6). It held that the judge correctly instructed the jury on the mental element (intention to pervert justice) and that it was sufficient for the jury to consider whether the hard drives might have contained material relevant to the investigation, rejecting the argument that it had to be proven the devices were actually used in the fraud. The court accepted that deleting data to prevent investigation, including absence of material, was sufficient to establish the offence.

Regarding the judicial interventions during Appellant B's evidence-in-chief, the court acknowledged the unusually high number of questions posed by the judge, including some that went beyond mere clarification. However, it emphasized the adversarial nature of the system, the judge's role as a neutral umpire, and the importance of allowing the defendant to present their account fully. The court noted that the judge's tone was courteous and that the interventions were largely open questions aimed at assisting the jury, especially given the numerous jury notes requiring prompt responses.

The court also considered the handling of jury notes, stressing that while the judge is best placed to manage them, counsel should normally be shown such notes to agree on responses to avoid disrupting the flow of evidence or impairing the defendant's ability to present their case.

On the refusal to adjourn, the court found the trial judge acted within discretion, with valid reasons related to a witness's health and the provision of special measures, and no unfairness resulted.

As to handwriting evidence, the court accepted that the judge exceeded permissible limits by inviting the jury to compare handwriting, but this was remedied by directions to the jury to disregard such comparisons, and the court found the convictions were not unsafe on this basis.

Ultimately, the court concluded that despite the extensive judicial intervention, the summing-up was fair and balanced, the defendants' cases were properly presented, and the jury was able to consider all evidence. The court found no unfairness that rendered the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeals against conviction. The convictions of both appellants were upheld.

The decision confirms that while judicial intervention during evidence-in-chief must be carefully managed to maintain fairness, extensive questioning by a judge does not automatically render a trial unfair if the overall conduct, including summing-up and opportunity for defence, is balanced. The ruling reinforces the principle that the jury remains the ultimate tribunal of fact and that the adversarial system requires judges to act as neutral umpires rather than participants in evidence-giving.