Homepage

Robert Stevenson in Court of Appeal

Date:

06th February 2012

Team:

Crime.

In August last year, at Leeds Crown Court, Carl Walton was acquitted of burglary but convicted of attempted theft.  The evidence against him consisted entirely of the fact that his DNA had been found on an implement used during the course of the offence.  In a judgment delivered by Lady Justice Hallett, the Court of Appeal upheld the two grounds of appeal advanced by Robert Stevenson, namely that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution during the original trial was insufficient to prove that Mr Walton was ever at the scene of the offence and that the judge had not directed the jury properly when summing-up the case.

During the early hours of the morning, in October 2010, a burglary took place at an address in Leeds.  The offender tried to steal car keys from within the property by reaching through the letterbox using a bamboo cane, with a magnet attached to the end by a piece of string.  When the homeowners disturbed the offender he made off, leaving behind the implement used to reach inside.

Mr Walton’s DNA was found on either the cane or the string, but due to the way that the evidence had been gathered, the forensic science service were not able to say which.  It was also not possible to say when his DNA had been left on the item.  In addition, the results of the DNA analysis revealed a ‘mixed profile’ where there were traces of DNA from at least two other unidentified contributors.

The Court of Appeal found force in the submission that the judge should have allowed the defence submission of no case to answer on the basis that the DNA evidence alone was not capable of proving that Mr Walton had ever visited the scene of the offence.  The most that this evidence had established was that Mr Walton, among others, had handled the cane or the string at some point in the past.

The Court of Appeal also found that the judge had misdirected the jury in relation to how they should treat Mr Walton’s silence during his police interview.  HHJ Collier QC had accepted that the jury should not draw any adverse inference from Mr Walton’s interview because he had not relied on any facts, during the trial, which he had previously failed to mention.  However, when summing the case up for the jury, the judge failed to direct them in accordance with the case of R v McGarry [1999] 1 Cr. App.R. 377 because he did not specifically advise the jury that they must not draw any inference from Mr Walton’s silence.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that the conviction was unsafe and it was quashed.