The defendants appealed against their conviction for conspiracy to handle stolen goods. They denied knowledge that the goods (cars) were stolen.
Held: The judge had failed to direct the jury not to discuss the case outside court. He had failed to consult counsel when preparing his directions with the result that the directions failed to give adequate Lucas directions which distinguished between te defendants and failed to distinguish between them when warning as to the reliability of evidence given by each defendant against the others. Nor had he satisfactorily clarified the need for dishonesty as part of any finding of guilt for handling stolen goods, or summed up the evidence. There were serious flaws in the directions. The convictions were quashed
Judges:
Waller LJ, Garland, Sachs JJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Crim 731
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Knowlden and Knowlden CACD 1983
The court set out warnings for the jury when considering evidence from a co-accused. The rule in Prater was not a rule of law but ultimately in the discretion of the judge: and that ‘the customary clear warning to examine the evidence of each . .
Cited – Regina v Prime CACD 1973
Widgery LCJ said: ‘It is important in all criminal cases that the judge should on the first occasion when the jury separate warn them not to talk about the case to anybody who is not one of their number.’ . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158759
