Key Facts
- •Seven defendants were accused of fraudulent activity related to the sale of home improvement products to elderly customers.
- •The prosecution sought to admit two covert films (Films A and B) as evidence.
- •Film A showed training of sales personnel in improper sales techniques.
- •Film B showed a sting operation illustrating the improper sales techniques.
- •The defense argued for exclusion of the films due to concerns about the prosecution's interaction with the television company, disclosure failures, and the inability to cross-examine the uncharged salesman in Film B.
- •The judge excluded Film B, ruling that the absence of the salesman in Film B prevented the defense from testing his motivations and actions.
- •The judge also excluded evidence from customers who dealt with uncharged sales representatives.
- •The prosecution appealed the judge's rulings.
Legal Principles
There is no legal requirement to charge every person involved in a conspiracy.
Archbold, 2023 edition, chapter 33, paragraph 47; R v Austin [2011] EWCA Crim 345; R v Bashir [2019] EWCA Crim 2288
Section 58(4) of the 2003 Act sets out conditions precedent to bringing an appeal, which must be strictly observed.
R v M [2012] EWCA Crim 792; R v CMH [2009] EWCA Crim 2614
The court may not reverse a ruling unless it is satisfied that the ruling was wrong in law, involved an error of law or principle, or was unreasonable.
Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2000
In exercising discretion under section 78 of PACE, the court must consider whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value.
R v B [2008] EWCA Crim 1144
Outcomes
The appeal against the ruling of January 23rd was granted.
The judge's ruling involved an error of law and principle, and was unreasonable. The defendants would not suffer unfair prejudice from the admission of the evidence.
The judge's decision to exclude Film B stands.
The prosecution failed to comply with the conditions precedent to appeal the January 20th ruling.
The exclusion of customer evidence concerning uncharged sales representatives was reversed.
The ruling was based on the same error of law and principle as the January 20th ruling and was unreasonable.