Presentation Script
Introduction:
Good morning my name is Muhammad Eehan and my Student ID is 2420338.
Your Honour and members of the court. Today, I will outline the grounds of
appeal in relation to the convictions of Thomas, Donald, and Amjad, all tried
before His Honour Judge Hooligan at Luton Crown Court. Each case involves
significant judicial misdirections that have led to unsafe convictions, violating
principles of fairness and due process. These errors include misstatements on
corroboration, the burden of proof for automatism, and the admissibility of
evidence. I will detail these grounds of appeal, supported by established legal
precedents and statutory requirements.
Ground 1: Thomas – Misdirection on Corroboration
Thomas was convicted of rape, and Judge Hooligan directed the jury as
follows: "You may find the corroboration of the girl’s story in any evidence that
supports her story as long as the evidence does not come from her mouth. You
may, for instance, find corroboration if you disbelieve the defendant’s story that he
had not spoken to the girl on the evening of the rape."
This direction conflates disbelief in the defendant’s account with corroboration,
which is a misstatement of law. Corroboration, as clarified in R v
Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658, requires independent evidence that implicates the
accused and cannot rely solely on a negative inference from the defendant’s
testimony. The presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal justice, means
that the burden lies entirely with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, as held in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462.
The judge’s misdirection likely misled the jury into treating disbelief of the
defendant’s account as evidence corroborating the complainant’s story. This error
undermined the fairness of the trial and warrants the quashing of Thomas’s
conviction.
Ground 2: Donald – Misdirection on Automatism
Donald was convicted of dangerous driving, and Judge Hooligan stated: "If this
accused says he acted in a state of non-insane automatism, then he must establish
that fact by leading evidence."
This direction misstates the legal burden of proof. Automatism, as clarified
in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 and Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB
277, is a denial of the actus reus. Once raised by the defence, the prosecution bears
the burden of disproving automatism beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is
only required to raise sufficient evidence to make automatism a live issue; they do
not bear the burden of proof.
The judge’s instruction effectively reversed the burden of proof, placing an
unlawful obligation on Donald to prove his defence. This error could have led the
jury to convict without proper consideration of whether the prosecution discharged
its burden to disprove automatism. Such a fundamental misdirection compromises
the safety of the conviction.
Ground 3: Amjad – Admissibility of PC Plods’ Notebook
Amjad was convicted of actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861. Judge Hooligan directed the jury: "You may consider PC Plods’
notebook as evidence in this case because counsel for the defence cross-examined
the police officer over the entire contents of the notebook when giving his evidence
at the trial."
This direction misapplies the rules of evidentiary admissibility. Referring to a
document during cross-examination does not make it admissible as substantive
evidence, as held in R v Clifford [1953] 1 WLR 1397. Under the Criminal Justice
Act 2003, only certain prior statements are admissible as evidence, such as under
Section 119 for inconsistent statements or Section 120 for memory-refreshing. The
judge failed to apply these statutory conditions.
By treating the notebook as substantive evidence, the jury may have improperly
relied on inadmissible material in determining guilt. This error compromises the
fairness of the trial and calls the safety of Amjad’s conviction into question.
Legal Framework:
The errors in these cases demonstrate breaches of fundamental legal principles,
including:
1. Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof:Woolmington v DPP confirms
that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden
cannot shift to the defendant.
2. Requirements for Corroboration: R v Baskervillespecifies that corroborative
evidence must be independent and implicate the accused directly.
3. Automatism as a Defence: Hill v Baxter clarifies that automatism negates the
actus reus, placing the evidential burden on the defence and the legal burden on the
prosecution.
4. Admissibility of Evidence: The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets strict criteria for
admitting prior statements as evidence.
Each of Judge Hooligan’s directions contravenes these principles, leading to unsafe
convictions.
Prayer Clause:
To conclude, the directions given by Judge Hooligan in these trials amount to
significant legal errors that undermine the safety of each conviction:
• In Thomas’s case, the misstatement on corroboration effectively reversed the
burden of proof, compromising the fairness of the trial.
• In Donald’s case, the erroneous direction on automatism violated the fundamental
principle that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.
• In Amjad’s case, the improper admission of PC Plods’ notebook as evidence
allowed inadmissible material to influence the jury’s decision.
Each of these errors constitutes a miscarriage of justice, and the convictions should
be quashed. The appellants respectfully request that the Court of Appeal allow the
appeals and, if necessary, order retrials to ensure justice is served. Thank you.
Relief Claimed
The appellants respectfully request the Court of Appeal to:
1. Quash the convictions of the defendants (Thomas, Donald, and Amjad) due to
material misdirections by the trial judge.
2. Order retrials for each defendant if deemed appropriate.
3. Alternatively, substitute acquittals if the evidence presented at trial cannot support
a conviction in the absence of the misdirections.
The appellants seek such further or other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
