Maddison v Rex

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant was convicted unanimously on 19 May 2023 at the Crown Court at Durham of a single count of Robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968. On 18 October 2023, the Applicant was sentenced to 48 months' imprisonment and made subject to a Restraining Order for 10 years under s.360 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The incident involved a robbery at a Fish and Chip Shop in Trimdon, County Durham on 26 August 2020, committed by two masked and gloved men. The shop owner and manager, along with employees and children, were present during the robbery. The Applicant was alleged to be one of the robbers, specifically the man holding a metal bar and stealing a carrier bag containing around £4,800 in cash. The Applicant denied involvement in the robbery and gave a prepared statement denying being one of the robbers. Identification procedures including video identification parades were conducted, resulting in identification of the Applicant and the co-accused by witnesses.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is an arguable case that the trial judge erred in refusing to accede to a submission of no case to answer at the conclusion of the prosecution case.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The identification evidence was inherently weak and could not safely be put to a jury.
• The robber wore a mask, negating facial recognition.
• The owner stated the robber had brown eyes, whereas the Applicant has blue eyes.
• Witness evidence on clothing was contradictory and inconsistent with CCTV footage.
• Identification based on gait was unreliable due to limited movement and space.
• The quality of identification was poor, and the weaknesses rendered the prosecution case tenuous under the second limb of R v Galbraith.
• Coincidences pointed out by the single judge did not overcome the weak identification evidence.
• Association of the Applicant with the co-accused could have led to mistaken identification.
• Recognition of the co-accused does not increase the likelihood of correct identification of the Applicant.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the entirety of the evidence, balancing both strengths and weaknesses. It noted that two witnesses had multiple opportunities to observe the Applicant entering the shop before the robbery, with good lighting and an unimpeded view for approximately 37 seconds during the incident. The court acknowledged inconsistencies in clothing descriptions and limitations in identifying gait but found these outweighed by cumulative factors such as the Applicant wearing the same distinctive clothing (an Armani top) as the robber, albeit inside out, and the Applicant's presence near the scene shortly before the robbery. The court also considered the witnesses’ familiarity with the Applicant and the co-accused and their interactions earlier that evening. The possibility of mistaken association between the Applicant and co-accused was considered but deemed a matter for the jury's assessment rather than a factor weakening the identification to the point of no case to answer. The court accepted the trial judge’s approach of applying the combined tests from Turnbull and Galbraith, treating the evidence as a whole rather than isolating weak points. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient for a properly directed jury to convict and thus upheld the refusal of the submission of no case to answer.

Holding and Implications

The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

The court held that the identification evidence, despite some weaknesses, was sufficiently strong to be considered by a jury. The decision directly affects the Applicant by upholding the conviction and sentencing without setting new legal precedent. No error of principle was found in the trial judge’s refusal to stop the case, and no compelling reason was identified to warrant a full court hearing on the matter.