Jackson, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 22 October 2018, two men wearing balaclavas on a lime green motorcycle entered a post office in The City. One held a machete wrapped with black tape, and the other brandished what appeared to be a sawn-off shotgun, later identified as an imitation firearm. They threatened staff and customers, stole approximately £70,000 in cash and stamps, and escaped on the motorcycle. The applicant was later arrested following an investigation that included CCTV footage, witness identification, and recovery of evidence such as machetes, cash, a balaclava, a hat with eyeholes, and a burned green motorcycle near his home. The applicant was charged with robbery contrary to s. 8 of the Theft Act 1968 and possession of an imitation firearm at the time of committing an indictable offence contrary to s. 17(2) Firearms Act 1968.

After a six-day trial before Her Honour Judge Wright at the Crown Court at Sheffield, the applicant was convicted on both counts on 24 April 2019. On 7 June 2019, he was sentenced to an extended sentence of 25 years, comprising 20 years custody and a 5-year extension period, to run concurrently on both counts. The sentencing followed the guidelines for a Professionally Planned Commercial Robbery.

The applicant initially sought permission to appeal both conviction and sentence, which was refused by a Single Judge. He renewed the application seeking permission to appeal the conviction only, requiring a 27-day extension of time, which was considered alongside the merits of the application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's decision to treat a Crown witness as hostile was correct in law and principle.
2. Whether the admission of the hostile witness's prior inconsistent statement was lawful and appropriate.
3. Whether the applicant was denied a fair trial due to the handling of the hostile witness and the related evidential rulings.
4. Whether the renewed application for extension of time to appeal the conviction should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicant criticized the trial judge's decision to grant the Crown's application to treat the garage manager as a hostile witness.
• The applicant argued that the ruling was incorrect in law or principle and led to an unsafe conviction.
• The applicant's counsel chose not to cross-examine the witness after the hostile witness ruling was made, a tactical decision.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Crown justified the hostile witness ruling based on the witness's inconsistent testimony denying prior statements.
• The Crown emphasized the strength of the overall evidence against the applicant beyond the hostile witness's testimony.
• The Crown opposed the extension of time for the appeal, arguing no benefit would arise from it.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the trial judge's discretion in treating the garage manager as a hostile witness. It found that the judge initially withdrew the Crown's application but later granted it upon receiving a statement from the officer who took the witness's police statement. The judge correctly applied s.119 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, admitting the prior inconsistent statement due to the witness's adverse testimony. The court observed that the applicant's counsel had made a tactical decision not to cross-examine the witness after the hostile witness ruling, and the trial judge fairly offered an opportunity to cross-examine which was declined.

The judge also properly considered and rejected exclusion of the statement under s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The court found the jury was adequately directed to treat the hostile witness's evidence with caution, including the fact of inconsistent statements.

The court emphasized that the hostile witness ruling is an absolute discretion of the trial judge, challengeable only in exceptional circumstances, none of which were present. It further noted that the evidence about the registration plate and motorbike was only a small part of the overall case against the applicant, which included multiple independent items of evidence and adverse inferences from the applicant's failure to testify.

Given these factors, the court concluded that the ruling was not arguably wrong in law or principle and that the conviction was safe. Consequently, the renewed application to appeal the conviction and the request for an extension of time were refused.

Holding and Implications

The renewed application for permission to appeal the conviction and the extension of time to file the appeal were both refused.

The direct effect of this decision is that the applicant's conviction and sentence remain upheld. No new legal precedent was established. The court reaffirmed the broad discretion of trial judges in managing hostile witnesses and the admission of prior inconsistent statements, emphasizing the importance of jury directions and the overall strength of the evidence in assessing the safety of convictions.