GB - JG & Ors, R v

Judgment

Lady Justice Rafferty:

The Respondents currently stand trial at the Crown Court in Liverpool for conspiracy to supply heroin. On Wednesday 18 th June 2014 the judge ruled there was no case to answer for 6 of the 7 defendants charged . The jury was not discharged. The Crown appealed against that ruling pursuant to Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. We heard the appeal on the 1 st July 2014. The trial was due to resume on that day against the remaining defendant, Fowler. We allowed the Crown’s appeal, reversed the ruling and ordered that the trial be resumed against all defendants.

The legal framework

Section 67 Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that this court may not reverse a ruling unless satisfied it was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle, or was not reasonable for the judge to make.

The facts in synopsis

The case for the Crown is that Nicholls and Johnson based in Evesham in Worcestershire sourced drugs from Gibson and Roach (assisted by Siddeley and Thompson) based in Leigh in Lancashire with Fowler as courier. Having observed Fowler travel to Leigh on 25 th September 2013 and having monitored his movements on the 25 th and 26 th September in the Leigh area, police intercepted him on his return south next day and seized a package containing heroin. On November 28 th 2013 at a point approximately equidistant between Evesham and Leigh Nicholls and Johnson in one vehicle and Gibson, Thompson and Siddeley in another met on a quiet road leading to a quarry. The meeting was very brief. Police stopped both vehicles on their respective journeys homeward. £4,000 cash was seized from Gibson’s vehicle or its occupants.

The history of the proceedings

The trial began on 2 nd June 2014. Gibson, Roach, Nicholls and Johnson had applied to dismiss the charge. The judge refused the applications and gave reasons in an oral judgment of 5 th June 2014. Submissions of no case to answer were successful on 18 th June at the close of the case for the Crown when the judge gave an oral judgment.

The judge’s approach

The judge took the Crown’s case at its highest. The case relied on circumstantial evidence. Thus, where “a key issue ….was whether there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could be entitled to draw an adverse inference against the defendant from a combination of factual circumstances based upon evidence adduced by the prosecution, the exercise of deciding that there is a case to answer involved the rejec