Ward, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 April 2019, the home of a victim was burgled, resulting in the theft of two cars: a Land Rover Discovery Sport and an Audi S3. The stolen Audi was subsequently used in multiple burglaries in the Oxfordshire area, including one at 79 Burford Road, Chipping Norton. Police located the Audi near a hotel, where four individuals were observed around the vehicle. Three were apprehended, linked to the crimes by evidence found on them and in the vehicle; the fourth escaped.

In December 2020, the appellant voluntarily attended a police station after being identified as the likely fourth individual. He declined to answer questions and refused to provide details about his mobile phone used around the time of the offences.

The appellant was tried at the Crown Court at Oxford before His Honour Judge Gledhill KC and a jury, and was convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary and theft. One co-accused pleaded guilty, two others were convicted in their absence. The appellant appeals against conviction with leave of the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in refusing to uphold the submission of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution's evidence.
2. Whether the DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crime was sufficient and properly admitted, considering possible alternative explanations such as secondary transfer.
3. Whether the judge correctly directed the jury regarding the evidence and the appellant's failure to give evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The evidence against the appellant was insufficient to go to the jury; the submission of no case to answer should have been upheld.
• The DNA evidence was a single mixed deposit with at least five other contributors, found on an item not located at the crime scene, allowing for possible secondary transfer.
• The appellant might never have worn the jeans bearing his DNA, and the DNA presence could have been indirect.
• The judge exaggerated the number of glass fragments matching those from the burglary scene found on exhibits.

Respondent's Arguments

• The appellant was the major contributor of the DNA found on the inner waistband of the jeans, strongly suggesting he wore them.
• The jury was entitled to draw an adverse inference from the appellant's failure to give evidence, as directed by the judge.
• Circumstantial evidence linked the appellant to the offences, including the proximity of the jeans to the other conspirators and the presence of matching glass fragments.
• The judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer and allow the case to proceed to the jury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Galbraith	Framework for submission of no case to answer, particularly the second limb relating to sufficiency of evidence.	The judge applied the test and found sufficient evidence to leave the case to the jury despite the case not being strong.
R v Goddard [2012] EWCA Crim 1756	Establishes that a case is to be left to the jury if a reasonable jury could safely convict on the evidence.	The court confirmed the judge's approach to the circumstantial evidence was correct.
R v Tsekiri [2017] EWCA Crim 40	Addresses the approach to DNA evidence in submissions of no case to answer, including the possibility of secondary transfer.	The court applied the factors from Tsekiri to assess the DNA evidence and found the case was stronger than that precedent.
R v FNC [2015] EWCA Crim 1732	Clarifies that adverse inferences from silence are generally not drawn at submission of no case to answer stage in DNA cases.	The court noted this principle but acknowledged the judge had no material undermining the prosecution case at the ruling stage.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered whether the evidence, particularly the DNA evidence, was sufficient to require the appellant to answer the charges. It acknowledged the possibility of secondary transfer of DNA but emphasized that the appellant was the major contributor to the DNA found on the inner waistband of the jeans. The jeans bore glass fragments matching those from the burglary scene, linking them to the offence. The location of the jeans—hidden in a hotel near where other conspirators were apprehended—further connected the appellant to the crime.

The court applied established legal principles from relevant case law, notably the test from R v Galbraith and factors from R v Tsekiri, to assess the sufficiency of the evidence. It concluded that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the DNA evidence, was strong enough to be left for the jury's determination. The judge's directions to the jury on the appellant's silence and the adverse inference that could be drawn were proper and unchallenged.

The court rejected the appellant's contention that the judge exaggerated the glass fragment evidence, finding no defect in the judge's description and noting the precise number of fragments was not material.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appellant's appeal against conviction.

The direct consequence is that the appellant's convictions for conspiracy to commit burglary and theft remain upheld. The court found no basis to set aside the convictions and did not establish any new precedent. The decision reinforces the principle that DNA evidence, when combined with corroborative circumstantial evidence, can be sufficient to require a defendant to answer charges and support a jury's verdict of guilt.