Sousa, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 June 2025 at The Crown Court an Appellant was convicted unanimously of one count of perverting the course of public justice. On 8 August 2025 the Appellant received a suspended sentence order of 20 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years, with an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours, a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 20 days and supervision for 20 months. A Co-accused (the Appellant's brother) was convicted of the same offence and received the same sentence.

The prosecution case was that on the night of 30 October 2023 the Appellant and the Co-accused assisted their Father to travel from The Station to The City in The State by accompanying him to The Station, assisting him to purchase a coach ticket and waiting with him until shortly before departure. Agreed facts at trial were that on 30 October 2023 the Father stood trial at The Crown Court for sexual offences said to be attempts involving a virtual child; the Father was warned to return the next day or be arrested. The Father did not appear on the second day, a warrant issued, police checks showed he was no longer at his home address, and the trial proceeded in his absence, resulting in conviction and a custodial sentence of 4 years.

Police inquiries established a cash booking, in the Father's name, for a coach from The Station to The City leaving at 00:30 on 31 October 2023. CCTV showed the Father purchasing the ticket with the Appellant accompanying him. The coach operator was identified in the record as Company A.

The prosecution relied on CCTV, the evidence of a case officer (who presented footage, messages and interview material), a lie by the Appellant in interview denying the Co-accused's presence at The Station, and the Appellant's decision not to give evidence. The Appellant's defence was that attending The Station did not tend to pervert the course of public justice: he denied knowing the Father had to attend court, denied knowingly assisting the Father to leave the jurisdiction and denied perverting the course of justice.

The Appellant obtained leave to appeal limited to one ground: that the trial judge intervened improperly during cross-examination of the prosecution's witness. The Appellant had earlier sought leave on two additional grounds (alleged inadequate direction on the meaning of "tendency" and error in giving a Lucas direction) but, during oral submissions, Attorney Ahmed informed the court he was not pursuing renewal of those applications.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge intervened improperly during the cross-examination of the prosecution's witness such that the conviction was unsafe.
2. Whether renewal of leave should be granted in respect of alleged failures to direct on "tendency" and an asserted error in giving a Lucas direction (the Appellant discontinued pursuit of these points at the hearing).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge repeatedly interrupted and curtailed defence cross-examination of the case officer, preventing important lines of questioning (including on lack of communication to the Appellant of the specific offence against the Father) and conveying to the jury that the judge was unconvinced by the defence.
• Relied on R v Hulusi and Purvis (1974) 58 Cr App R 378 as authority that excessive judicial intervention can warrant quashing a conviction where (i) the judge invites the jury to disbelieve the defence, (ii) the judge makes it impossible for defence counsel to do his duty, or (iii) the judge prevents a defendant/witness from telling their story.
• Identified specific examples in the trial transcript (referred to in a perfected advice) where interventions allegedly disrupted cross-examination momentum and undermined challenges to the case officer's honesty.
• Criticised aspects of the judge's summing-up on parts of the jury bundle and suggested implicit criticism of defence counsel.

Crown's Arguments

• The case officer's evidence was not the entirety of the prosecution case: the jury had CCTV, messages and interview material to assess and draw inferences from; credibility of the officer was only one part of the evidence.
• The judge's interventions were proper: they ensured cross-examination proceeded in accordance with established principles (as summarised in Archbold), encouraged fair and direct puttings of allegations to the witness, and addressed comment versus question; interruptions did not prevent defence counsel from obtaining answers nor render the trial unfair.
• When transcript references were supplied they showed the criticisms to be without merit; any corrections or comments in the summing-up were limited, explained and left for the jury.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the nature and scope of the evidence: the case officer presented CCTV, messages and interview material but the inferences from those materials were for the jury. The court examined the perfected advice and the transcript references relied upon by the Appellant. It considered the Hulusi and Purvis principles and assessed each example of alleged improper intervention.

The court found that many contested interventions simply required counsel to rephrase questions or to put allegations fairly to the witness; in one instance counsel did rephrase and obtained the desired answer. The judge's interruptions addressing comment versus question, and prompting more direct puttings of allegations (including when counsel challenged the officer's honesty), were judged to be proper and not pejorative. The judge's remarks about parts of the jury bundle followed from the case officer's evidence and were corrective rather than contradictory; the judge left the final assessment to the jury. The court noted that the perfected advice initially lacked transcript references, and when those references were provided the criticisms lacked substance.

Overall the court concluded there was no unfairness or impropriety in the trial judge's conduct that could have made the conviction unsafe; there was ample material from which the jury could properly infer guilt.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The appeal against conviction is dismissed; the conviction is upheld.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the conviction and sentence remain in force. The court concluded no unfairness in trial conduct and did not identify any new legal principle or precedent arising from this decision.