APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION BY FRANCIS MOONEY AGAINST HMA

Factual and Procedural Background

On 24 September 2021, the Defendant was observed by plain clothes police officers at Dunn Street, The City, where he was involved in receiving a bag containing a firearm and ammunition from a third party. The police had prior intelligence regarding a firearm transfer and positioned unmarked vehicles to monitor the area. The Defendant and a companion arrived by taxi and waited before the transfer occurred. Following the exchange, police intervened, apprehending the Defendant and his companion while the third party fled. The Defendant was subsequently charged and convicted at trial on 5 May 2023 of possessing a firearm without a certificate, with the offence committed in an aggravated form under the Firearms Act 1968 as amended.

The Defendant appealed against conviction on two grounds: first, that the trial judge erred in repelling a no case to answer submission; and second, that the trial judge's charge to the jury contained a material misdirection resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The appeal was heard on 14 December 2023, at which time the court refused the appeal and later provided written reasons.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was correct to repel the submission of no case to answer based on the sufficiency and corroboration of identification evidence.
2. Whether the trial judge's charge to the jury contained a material misdirection regarding the use of CCTV footage as corroborative evidence, thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The no case to answer submission should have been upheld because the evidence identifying the Defendant as the perpetrator lacked sufficient corroboration. While Constable Dinnen's identification was clear, the only other identification evidence was from Constable Paterson, who merely placed the Defendant as one of two men present but did not specifically identify him as the individual who received the firearm.
• The trial judge misdirected the jury by instructing that the CCTV footage could corroborate Constable Dinnen’s identification. The judge acknowledged the footage quality was insufficient for the jury to make a direct identification, so the footage could not properly serve as corroboration.

Respondent's Arguments

• Little corroboration was needed given the clear and unequivocal identification by Constable Dinnen, consistent with established case law.
• Corroboration requires only evidence that supports, confirms, or fits with the primary evidence, not evidence that is more consistent with guilt than innocence.
• The combination of Constable Paterson’s evidence and the CCTV footage was sufficient to corroborate Constable Dinnen’s identification. The footage showed the sequence of events consistent with the identification and the positioning of the Defendant, supporting the Crown’s case.
• The trial judge’s directions to the jury were accurate and did not amount to misdirection; the CCTV footage, when considered with other evidence, could properly be used as corroboration.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the evidential status of the CCTV footage as real evidence, capable of proving facts and supporting reasonable inferences. The jury was entitled to consider the footage alongside other evidence to determine whether the crime was committed and by whom.

Regarding the first ground, the court acknowledged that Constable Dinnen’s clear and unequivocal identification of the Defendant as the perpetrator required minimal corroboration. The issue was whether the combined evidence of Constable Paterson and the CCTV footage sufficed as corroboration.

Constable Paterson identified the Defendant as one of the two men remaining at the scene after the third party fled. The CCTV footage showed the man wearing a gilet and cap receiving the bag and being apprehended by the police car driven by Constable Dinnen. While the footage quality was insufficient for direct identification by the jury, it corroborated the sequence of events and the roles of the individuals involved.

The court applied established legal principles that corroboration need only support, confirm, or fit with the primary evidence, not be more consistent with guilt than innocence. The combined evidence placed the Defendant at the scene in the relevant role and supported Constable Dinnen’s identification.

Concerning the second ground, the court found no material misdirection in the trial judge’s charge. The judge had carefully instructed the jury that the footage was insufficient for direct visual identification but could be used to draw inferences and corroborate other evidence when considered together. The examples cited by the judge illustrated how the footage supported the identification evidence, not that it alone identified the Defendant. Thus, the charge was accurate and did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is the upholding of the Defendant’s conviction. The court confirmed the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of the trial judge’s directions to the jury, emphasizing the accepted standards for corroboration in criminal identification cases. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirmed existing principles regarding corroboration and the use of CCTV footage in criminal trials.