Lewin, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 2 May 2025, at the Crown Court at The City before Judge Meegan, the Appellant was convicted on two counts of criminal damage. Sentence imposed on 2 May 2025: a fine of £500 on count 1 (no separate sentence for count 2), a victim surcharge of £200, compensation of £2,000 and prosecution costs of £4,380. A restraining order was made until 2 May 2030 prohibiting the Appellant from contacting or attending any address of Complainant 1 in respect of count 1. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal on two grounds: (i) alleged wrongful direction to the jury on identification evidence; and (ii) alleged failure to identify sufficiently the evidence relied on for the Appellant's alibi defence.

Background facts (as stated in the opinion): In 2018 Complainant 1 rented an annex from the Appellant for approximately three months and animosity developed on termination. In the early hours of 24 April 2022 damage was caused to two vehicles belonging to Complainant 1 and Complainant 2 by a person pouring liquid over them; part of the incident was captured on CCTV covering the front of the complainants' property. Complainant 1 viewed that CCTV and identified the Appellant. Police obtained further CCTV near the Appellant's home which was said to show the Appellant leaving in a vehicle at 23:25 and returning at 00:23 on the night in question. In a police interview on 14 October 2022 the Appellant denied being the person on the footage, gave a possible alibi of being away (North Wales/south coast) and said a neighbour sometimes had access to his vehicle. The prosecution relied on Complainant 1's identification (face, body shape, walk, perceived age) and on distinctive clothing (a jacket with two fluorescent stripes) visible on both sets of CCTV and on the vehicle movements; the defence asserted misidentification and that the Appellant was in North Wales at the relevant time.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge wrongly directed the jury on the issue of identification evidence (in the summing-up and/or in response to a jury question).
2. Whether the trial judge failed sufficiently to identify the evidence that the Appellant relied on in support of his alibi defence.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Appellant caused the damage to both vehicles; Complainant 1 identified the Appellant from CCTV by facial and other features.
• Distinctive clothing (a jacket with two fluorescent stripes) seen on the offender in CCTV at the scene matched footage of a person wearing the same jacket getting into the Appellant's vehicle near the Appellant's home shortly before and after the incident.
• Proximity and timing of vehicle movements on CCTV supported the prosecution's identification case.

Appellant's Arguments

• The identification by Complainant 1 was mistaken.
• The Appellant had an alibi: he was in North Wales (and may have been on the south coast) at the time of the incident.
• The Appellant denied being the person on the CCTV in interview and in evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the trial judge's written and oral directions on identification and the additional direction given in response to a jury question. The trial judge had instructed the jury that identification evidence could be considered in two distinct ways: (a) the jury's own comparison of the footage with the Appellant in court; and (b) the identification by Complainant 1 who knew the Appellant and had studied the footage. The trial judge warned of the risk of mistaken identification, the possible effect of poor footage quality, and cautioned the jury not to conflate the two exercises.

The court referred to Attorney-General's Reference No 2 of 2002 and R v Ozger to explain that, subject to sufficient warning, a jury may convict on the basis of photographic/CCTV images in particular circumstances and that witness recognition and jury comparison are separate exercises. The appellate court accepted, as a matter of principle, that a jury might find the footage insufficient for their own safe comparison while nonetheless being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by a witness who knew the defendant and whose evidence took into account features (including distinctive clothing) visible on the footage.

Applying those principles to the facts, the court noted that Complainant 1 had given factual evidence explaining the bases for his identification (face width, body shape, walk, apparent age) and that there was supporting evidence: CCTV near the Appellant's home showing a person wearing similar distinctive clothing entering and leaving the Appellant's vehicle at relevant times and the proximity/timing permitting travel between the properties. The judge had repeated the key written direction and answered the jury note to emphasise the distinct exercises and cautions. On that basis the court found the directions were not flawed and the conviction was not rendered unsafe.

On the alibi ground, the court reviewed the judge's summing-up which identified the defence as alibi (Appellant said he was in North Wales). The judge reminded the jury of the Appellant's police interview, the absence of ANPR attribution to the Appellant's vehicle, and a Facebook memory showing a photograph of the Appellant at the coast with his motorhome in April 2022. Given the short trial and that the Appellant's evidence would have been fresh in the jury's minds, the appellate court considered the summing-up of the alibi evidence suitably detailed and sufficient.

The court also addressed additional written grounds the Appellant sought to raise (complaints about legal representatives and general points on evidence strength) and refused leave where the Appellant had failed to sign a waiver of privilege form and where the Single Judge had already found no substance in those complaints.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The appellate court held that (a) the trial judge's identification directions, including the supplemental direction to the jury, were not flawed and did not render the conviction unsafe; and (b) the judge sufficiently identified the evidence relied on for the Appellant's alibi defence in the summing-up.

Implications: The convictions and sentences as imposed by the Crown Court at The City remain in force. The decision affirms the approach that witness identification and jury comparison are distinct exercises and that, with appropriate caution and supporting evidence, a jury may rely on a witness's identification even if the footage is insufficient for the jury's own comparison. The opinion did not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond applying existing authorities.