Gold, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 40, pleaded guilty on 1st November 2021 at the Crown Court at Wood Green to multiple counts of theft and related offences on a 23 count indictment, including offences of theft, fraudulent use of a vehicle licence, and driving whilst disqualified. A trial was held on the remaining counts, resulting in convictions on all six counts. Sentencing was imposed on 8th July 2022, including an extended sentence for robbery and concurrent sentences for other offences. The judge imposed no separate penalty on the offences to which the Appellant had pleaded guilty, a decision later noted as inappropriate but not appealed further.

The appeal before this court concerns convictions arising from offences committed between January and May 2021, involving numerous shoplifting incidents where the Appellant took bottles of alcohol and other goods without payment. CCTV footage showed persistent and brazen behaviour, including the use of bags and a suitcase to carry stolen goods. More serious offences involved threats to store staff with a knife or bladed article during confrontations in several shops, including incidents of robbery and assault.

The prosecution presented eyewitness testimony and CCTV evidence at trial. The Defence initially denied involvement but later accepted the Appellant was the individual on the footage. The key issue for the jury was whether the Appellant had used or threatened force with a weapon, which the jury found proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The Appellant appeals on two grounds: the use of CCTV footage as a memory aid for prosecution witnesses and the refusal to discharge a juror who disclosed limited prior knowledge of a non-witness security guard related to one offence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in allowing prosecution witnesses to view CCTV footage during their evidence-in-chief, potentially undermining the fairness of cross-examination.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge a juror who disclosed partial familiarity with a non-witness security guard connected to one of the offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The use of CCTV footage during examination-in-chief effectively allowed witnesses to refresh their memory, which was impermissible and prejudiced the Defence's ability to cross-examine effectively.
• The trial judge should have discharged the juror who disclosed knowing the security guard involved in one offence, or at least conducted further inquiry, as this prior knowledge risked bias against the Appellant.
• The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) should be directed to investigate the juror's potential bias and report to the court.

Prosecution's Arguments

• Showing CCTV footage to witnesses during evidence-in-chief is a standard practice and did not cause unfairness, especially as the evidence given was consistent with the footage.
• The juror’s limited and remote familiarity with a non-witness security guard did not raise a real possibility of bias, and the juror had been properly warned and affirmed her duty to try the case fairly.
• No further inquiry into the juror’s knowledge was necessary, and the judge’s refusal to discharge the juror was appropriate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the first ground concerning the use of CCTV footage with prosecution witnesses. It noted that the footage was played after witnesses had given their evidence-in-chief, and the Defence had the opportunity to cross-examine fully. The court found no material inconsistencies between witness statements and the footage and concluded that the Defence’s concerns about undermining cross-examination were speculative and theoretical rather than grounded in the facts of the case. The court rejected the suggestion that the footage’s use caused unfairness or undermined the safety of the conviction.

Regarding the second ground, the court examined the juror’s note disclosing limited prior knowledge of a non-witness security guard. It found that the juror’s knowledge was tenuous, remote in time, and involved a person who was not a witness in the trial. The judge’s refusal to discharge the juror was based on a proper assessment of the likelihood of bias, and the court agreed that no real possibility of bias existed. The court also considered whether further inquiry was necessary and concluded it was not, given the limited nature of the connection. Consequently, the court rejected the application for the CCRC to investigate the juror.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the convictions and found no procedural or fairness errors warranting interference. The decision confirms that the use of CCTV footage during witness testimony, when done as in this case, does not necessarily undermine the fairness of trial proceedings. It also clarifies that limited and remote juror familiarity with non-witness individuals does not automatically require discharge or further investigation absent evidence of bias. No new precedent was established; the ruling confirms established principles regarding evidence presentation and juror impartiality. The direct effect is to maintain the Appellant's convictions and sentences as imposed.