Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Graeme Brooker v R

[2024] EWCA Crim 103
A man was convicted of stealing from his sister. His lawyer didn't question his sister in court because he worried it would make her unwell, even though there was no good reason to think this. The judge told the jury they could think about this when deciding if the man was guilty. Although the lawyer did a bad job, the court decided the man's conviction was fair because the judge's instructions to the jury were not too harsh and the man understood what his lawyer was doing.

Key Facts

  • Graeme Brooker was convicted of two counts of theft from his sister, Cheryl Brooker, after a trial.
  • The appeal concerns the fairness of the trial, specifically the defence counsel's (Mr. Martin-Sperry's) decision not to cross-examine Cheryl Brooker.
  • Mr. Martin-Sperry's decision was based on his personal opinion that cross-examination would risk Cheryl's health, despite a lack of medical evidence supporting this.
  • The judge directed the jury that they could consider the defence's failure to cross-examine Cheryl as a factor in their deliberations.
  • The appellant's case was that the money was a gift from his sister and he did not steal it.
  • Mr. Martin-Sperry's conduct was found to be unprofessional and below the expected standard for a barrister.

Legal Principles

Every defendant has an absolute right to a fair trial.

R v Farooqi and others [2013] EWCA Crim 1649

Incompetent representation, in itself, does not form a ground of appeal unless it led to identifiable errors or irregularities rendering the process unfair or unsafe.

R v Mark Darren Day [2003] EWCA Crim 1060

A party is required to challenge in cross-examination the evidence of any witness of the opposing party if they wish to submit that the evidence should not be accepted.

Phipson on Evidence 20th ed (2022)

Counsel's duty to the court overrides any other duty, including the duty to act in the best interests of their client.

Bar Standard Code of Conduct

Counsel must not make a serious allegation against a witness whom they have had an opportunity to cross-examine unless they have given that witness a chance to answer the allegation.

Bar Standard Code of Conduct, Rule C7

Once the court has ruled on a witness's competence, the parties are bound by the ruling.

Case Law

Outcomes

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Despite the defence counsel's incompetence, the conviction was deemed safe due to several factors: the unfairness was primarily to the prosecution; the adverse direction to the jury was mild; the appellant understood the potential consequences; and the judge's summing up was fair.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.