R v Jodie Marie Smith & Anor
[2023] EWCA Crim 1397
R v Yvonne Elizabeth Stewart & Ors
11 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 885
Court of Appeal
Three people were convicted of sending drugs in a package. Even though some mistakes were made during the trial, there was plenty of evidence to prove they were guilty, so the appeals were rejected. The court said the mistakes didn't affect the fairness of the trial.
Key Facts
- •Yvonne Stewart, Kevin Filkins, and Robert Hamilton were convicted of fraudulent evasion of a prohibition on the exportation of goods.
- •They were involved in sending a package containing 24 kg of 80% pure methylamphetamine via DHL.
- •Ms. Stewart worked at the DHL facility where the package was sent.
- •Mr. Filkins's Revolut card was used to pay for the shipment.
- •Communication records showed contact between the three defendants around the time of the shipment.
- •Two earlier shipments, containing salt, were also sent using a similar method.
- •Passports belonging to individuals unrelated to the case were found at Mr. Filkins's home.
- •The prosecution initially presented evidence suggesting all three packages contained Class A drugs, but later revealed that the first two contained salt.
Legal Principles
Trial judges have discretion in allowing the prosecution to reopen its case after closing speeches, even if it deviates from the strict rules stated in older cases. The discretion must be exercised judiciously and without prejudice to the defense.
R v Day (1940) 27 Cr App R 168; R v Owen [1952] 2 QB 362; R v Milligan (1969) 53 Cr App R 330; Malcolm v Director of Public Prosecutions [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin)
The fundamental question for the Court of Appeal is whether the convictions are unsafe. The court considers whether any errors made during the trial affected the safety of the convictions.
This case
Outcomes
Leave to appeal refused.
The court found the evidence overwhelmingly supported the convictions. The alleged errors were considered peripheral to the strength of the prosecution's case, and did not render the convictions unsafe.
Refusal of leave to argue the 'parcel issue'.
While the prosecution initially presented a photograph that misleadingly implied tampering, the judge's decision to allow the introduction of additional photographic evidence corrected the misleading impression. The defense's argument was based on a flawed interpretation of the evidence available to them from the outset.
Refusal of leave to argue the 'salt issue'.
Although the prosecution initially presented inaccurate information about the contents of the first two packages, this inaccuracy was corrected during the trial. This correction did not render the convictions unsafe, as the evidence regarding the third package remained overwhelmingly incriminating.
Refusal of leave to argue the 'Australian criminal issue'.
The agreed facts presented to the jury provided sufficient information for the defense to make their arguments. The lack of direct links between the Australian criminals and the defendants did not impact the safety of the convictions.