R v Simon Davies & Ors
[2024] EWCA Crim 969
R v AWQ
23 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 898
Court of Appeal
A man was accused of being part of a drug gang. The judge said there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, so the case was dropped. The prosecutors appealed, arguing there *was* enough evidence. The appeals court agreed, saying the judge didn't look at the evidence properly and that there was enough to go to trial. The appeals court also said some important evidence the judge didn't allow should have been considered. So, the man will have another trial.
Key Facts
- •AWQ was charged with participating in the activities of an Organised Crime Group under section 45(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015.
- •The trial judge ruled there was no case to answer, dismissing the charges against AWQ.
- •The prosecution appealed this ruling under section 58(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, also appealing a related hearsay evidence ruling.
- •The prosecution's appeal notice was served late due to a defunct email address on the Gov.UK website.
- •The prosecution's case relied on AWQ's alleged assistance in debt collection for his brother, the head of the OCG.
- •Two episodes were cited: debt collection attempts involving 'JL' and 'JB'.
- •The judge excluded text messages from JB's sister implicating AWQ in the debt collection.
- •AWQ's defense argued insufficient evidence linking him to the drug debts and lack of context for communications.
Legal Principles
Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 governs appeals against rulings of 'no case to answer'.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 concerns the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
Criminal Justice Act 2003
Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 38.3(2)(b) and 38.7(3)(b) define timelines for serving appeal notices and responses.
Civil Procedure Rules
CPR 36.3(a) allows for extensions of time for service of appeal notices 'in the interests of justice'.
Civil Procedure Rules
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time for service of the appeal notice.
The late service was due to an error caused by an outdated government website; no prejudice resulted.
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal against the 'no case to answer' ruling.
The judge's ruling failed to adequately grapple with the prosecution's evidence; sufficient evidence existed for a jury to reasonably convict.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judge's ruling on the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
The judge's exclusion of the text messages was erroneous; the evidence, while circumstantial, was relevant and admissible.
A retrial of AWQ was ordered.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's rulings unreasonable and reversed both decisions.