Horne v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 3 December 2018, the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leicester to conveying a list B article into or out of prison and to eight counts of unauthorised transmission of an image or sound by electronic communication from within a prison ("the telephone offences"). On 16 May 2019, the Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, specifically for conspiring with another individual to interfere with witnesses in a case involving two witnesses. The Appellant was acquitted of attempted murder and related grievous bodily harm charges, and the prosecution offered no evidence on dangerous driving and uninsured motor vehicle charges. On 23 May 2019, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, combining sentences for conspiracy, conveying the list B article, and the telephone offences.

Two co-defendants pleaded guilty: one to an act tending to pervert the course of justice, and another to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, receiving a 20-month sentence. The Appellant appealed against the conspiracy conviction with leave of a single judge and sought an extension to renew an application to appeal against sentence.

The incident at the core involved a collision on 7 November 2017, where an individual was hit by a vehicle driven by the Appellant, causing life-changing injuries. Witnesses identified the Appellant as the driver, but prior to trial, attempts were made to influence their testimony through calls and visits, allegedly orchestrated by the Appellant and his co-conspirators. Evidence included communications from prison and inducements offered to witnesses to alter or withdraw their statements.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the guilty plea of one co-conspirator could be admitted as evidence against the Appellant in a closed conspiracy involving only the two alleged conspirators.
2. Whether the admission of the co-conspirator’s guilty plea rendered the trial unfair under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
3. Whether the Appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence on the telephone offences should be granted, specifically regarding the appropriate start date for time served under section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The admission of the co-conspirator’s guilty plea was erroneous because it was a closed conspiracy involving only the Appellant and the co-conspirator, making it inevitable the jury would infer the Appellant’s guilt.
• The judge’s directions to the jury were insufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of the co-conspirator’s plea.
• The telephone offences were related to the charges on which the Appellant was acquitted, so time served on remand should have been credited from the earlier arrest date.

Respondent's Arguments

• There is no legal prohibition against admitting a co-conspirator’s guilty plea even in a closed conspiracy, provided the judge directs the jury appropriately.
• The plea was admitted solely to support the credibility of the witnesses who had been challenged, and the jury was properly directed on this limited use.
• Even if the plea was wrongly admitted, the conviction was safe due to abundant other evidence of the Appellant’s involvement in the conspiracy and telephone contacts with witnesses.
• The telephone offences were not related offences for the purposes of section 240ZA as they were founded on different facts and evidence than the charges of attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Denham [2016] EWCA Crim 1048; [2017] 1 Cr App R 7	Judge must ensure admission of guilty pleas does not create unfairness in trial.	Referenced to support that admission of co-conspirator’s plea can be permissible with proper directions, but noted it did not involve a closed conspiracy.
R v Shirt [2018] EWCA Crim 2486; [2019] 1 Cr App R 15	Admission of evidence is unfair only if it makes proceedings unfair, not merely difficult for accused.	Used to underline the standard for unfairness in admitting evidence, but noted dissimilarity to closed conspiracy context.
R v Derk Nathan Smith [2007] EWCA Crim 2105	Section 74 PACE should be sparingly applied, especially in closed conspiracies where admission of co-defendant’s guilty plea risks unfair prejudice.	Held highly relevant; court relied on this authority to conclude admission of co-conspirator’s plea was unfair and should have been excluded.
R v O'Connor [1987] 85 Cr App R 298	Part of the line of cases on the caution required in admitting co-defendant guilty pleas.	Referred to in the discussion of principles governing admission of co-defendant pleas.
R v Kempster [1990] 90 Cr App R 14	Distillation of principles on admitting co-defendant guilty pleas under section 74 PACE.	Referred to for guidance on sparing application of section 74 and risk of unfair prejudice.
R v Barrell & Wilson [1979] 69 Cr App R 250	Test for joinder: offences must have a common factual origin.	Referenced in the context of interpreting "related offences" under section 240ZA Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the admissibility of the co-conspirator’s guilty plea under section 74(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and relevant case law. It acknowledged that while the plea was admitted with a limiting direction that it was only relevant to the credibility of certain witnesses, the nature of the closed conspiracy involving only the Appellant and the co-conspirator made this direction ineffective. The plea inherently implicated the Appellant, as conspiracy requires at least two parties, and the co-conspirator’s admission necessarily involved the Appellant.

The court relied heavily on the principles from R v Derk Nathan Smith, which cautions against admitting such evidence in closed conspiracies due to the risk of unfair prejudice that closes off the central issue for the jury. The court found that the admission of the plea was unfair and should have been excluded under section 78 PACE because of its adverse effect on the fairness of the trial.

Regarding the sentence appeal, the court analyzed the statutory language of section 240ZA Criminal Justice Act 2003, emphasizing a literal interpretation. It concluded that although the telephone offences were joined for trial due to a common factual origin, they were not "related offences" for the purpose of crediting time served on remand, as they were founded on different facts and occurred months after the initial incident. The court found no justification to start crediting time from the earlier arrest date.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal against conviction and QUASHED the Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It held that the admission of the co-conspirator’s guilty plea was unfair and should have been excluded under section 78 PACE, as it had a disproportionate prejudicial effect on the fairness of the trial.

The court DISMISSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence on the telephone offences, concluding that the offences were not "related" for the purpose of crediting time served on remand under section 240ZA Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The decision directly affects the parties by overturning the conspiracy conviction while leaving the sentence for the telephone offences intact. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case.