:
1. On 3 July 1999, in the Crown Court at Plymouth, before Butterfield J and a
jury, after a trial lasting some two weeks, the Appellant Stephen Francis
Horrill and the Applicant Brian Anthony Baker were convicted of the murder of
Robert William Jones, Horrill by a majority of ten to two and Baker by a
majority of eleven to one. Donna Marie Parker, Horrill's girlfriend, was found
not guilty of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public
justice.
2. Stephen Horrill now appeals against his conviction with the leave of this
court, differently constituted, which referred Brian Baker's application for
leave to appeal against conviction to be decided with Horrill's appeal.
3. Jones, Horrill and Baker were heavy drinkers who lived and associated in
Plymouth. On the night of Saturday to Sunday, 21 to 22 February 1998, Jones was
battered to death in Baker's flat on the first floor of 4 Elm Terrace,
Plymouth, by at least two assailants. The prosecution case was that Baker and
Horrill had attacked and killed him, and that Parker cleaned up after the
killing.
4. The essential issue in the cases of both Baker and Horrill was whether he
was proved to have participated in the killing. The evidential background as it
bears on the grounds of appeal was as follows.
5. On Thursday, 19 February 1998, Baker's landlord, Lloyd Addison, visited
Baker at his flat. Horrill and Parker were there. Baker said that Jones had
stolen his jacket, containing his keys, a few days earlier so that he, Baker,
had to smash a ground floor window to get in. Baker was just passing it off,
according to Addison, but Horrill, while not angry about it, said: "It is not
over". Addison reglazed the window. Horrill helped Addison clear up the
broken glass. Horrill had been drinking. He used his bare hands to collect the
glass and he cut his finger. In his evidence Addison at first said that Horrill
was bleeding in the house that day, but later said that the cut was very small.
He did not see any blood, but Horrill was sucking his finger. In answer to a
suggestion from Mr. John Aspinall Q.C., for Horrill, Addison agreed that it was
Horrill's left finger that was cut.
6. On the morning of Friday, 20 February, Addison found the window broken
again. He heard male voices in the first floor flat. That afternoon he saw
Parker leaving the house alone. She was going to the shops at nearby Mutley
Plain.
7. That evening, Parker bought food and drink at Somerfields on Mutley Plain.
Some of the food and bottles, and cans and receipts, were found in Baker's flat
after the killing. It was suggested that if Parker went back to Baker's flat
that evening, Horrill may have done so too, since they tended to be together,
and indeed the case advanced on Horrill's behalf was that they were together,
but in a different place, at the time of the killing.
8. On the morning of Saturday, 21 February, Addison changed the lock on the
front door of 4 Elm Terrace. He wanted to give Baker a key, but no one was
there; nor was anyone there when he returned at 3.30pm or 4pm.
9. At about 6pm on Saturday, 21 February, Geoff Smale, the occupier of the flat
above Parker's flat at 225 Grenville Road, Plymouth, saw her and Horrill in her
flat.
10. According to Trevor Wraith, a local alcoholic who slept rough in the area,
he saw Jones, Baker and Horrill in the Mutley area at about 9.30pm on Saturday,
21 February. He said that the three of them had obviously been drinking and
they were argumentative amongst themselves. Jones was "getting on" at Baker.
Horrill intervened and split them apart, saying: "Any sorting out, I'll do."
Wraith's evidence was strongly challenged. He denied being an alcoholic, but he
had been seen by police that afternoon in a very drunken condition. His initial
account placed events on the evening of Sunday 22 February, when Jones was
dead, but he did relate events to the day of a Plymouth Argyle football match
and result which he recalled, and which no one suggested to be other than on
Saturday, 21 February.
11. After working all evening Addison called at 4 Elm Terrace at about 12.30am
on Sunday, 22 February, hoping to give Baker a key before he broke in again,
despite the fact that the front door had been left wedged shut but unlocked. He
had previously boarded up the rebroken window. He did not go upstairs, he said,
because he had found Baker and his friends unpleasant when drunk, but he heard
no sounds from upstairs. He waited in the empty downstairs flat until 1.30am.
If Addison's evidence was accepted no one had returned to Baker's flat by
then.
12. At about 12.20am, and again at about 1 or 1.15am, police officers saw Baker
in the centre of Plymouth, having obviously had something to drink. He may have
been captured on CCTV at 1.43am.
13. There was evidence to suggest that at about the same time Parker and a man,
query Horrill, were at her flat at 22 Grenville Road, Plymouth. Smale and a
friend, Sharpe, heard the voices of Parker and a man, and music being played,
downstairs sometime between midnight and 4am. They did not hear the sound of
anyone leaving.
14. Neighbours on either side of Baker's flat in Elm Terrace heard noises in
the early hours of Sunday, 22 February. Mr Lang at no.5 heard thudding noises
from outside or inside no.4. He could not say just when or for how long. Mr and
Mrs Nugent from no.3 heard noises which Mrs Nugent put at 3am and which Mr
Nugent put at twenty minutes before he called the police at 3.17am. Mr Nugent
described the sound of loud male voices, possibly two or three, disembarking
from a taxi, and then, a bit later, cracking noises or breaking wood and
thumping noises from no.4. Mrs Nugent described a very loud noise like a foot
stamping very loudly or knocking against something and continuing for five to
ten minutes. Later, holes were found in the chipboard over the broken window.
Both Mr and Mrs Nugent also heard metallic scraping noises.
15. The prosecution left open the time of the killing. Forensic evidence of the
condition of the deceased's body put the time of death in a very wide bracket.
But Mr and Mrs Nugent's testimony was a cogent indication that it occurred at
about 3am on Sunday, 22 February.
16. Addison visited 4 Elm Terrace at 9 or 9.30am on Sunday, 22 February, and
found the broken board. He did not go upstairs. He returned at 3pm and went
into Baker's flat. He saw somebody lying on the floor with his head covered by
a jacket. He thought it was Baker sleeping off a heavy session. He returned at
4pm, pulled the jacket back and found the man was dead. It was not Baker, but
Jones. He called the police.
17. There were numerous injuries to Jones' head and neck, including a fracture
of the skull, and to his arms, shoulders and ribs. His small intestine had been
ruptured. His testicles were bruised. The T-shirt he was wearing was burnt.
There were three distinct groups of injuries. First, there were diffuse,
stamping and kicking injuries to head and abdomen. Second, a heavy blunt
instrument had been used to the head, leaving a channel-like dent to the skull.
Third, there were glass-type lacerations to the face and head; the remains of a
broken bottle lay nearby. It was clear that two weapons had been used, apart
from feet, and there were marks of two different sorts of footwear on Jones'
jeans. It was in truth obvious that at least two people had been personally
involved in the attack, and after the killing a great deal of cleaning and
tidying took place. There were obvious signs that blood patches had been
cleaned, and the shopping bags from Somerfields were, by now, filled with blood
stained materials with which the blood from Jones had been cleaned, as well as
broken pieces of glass.
18. Ignoring for present purposes what she said to the police in interview,
there was evidence admissible against Horrill and Baker, from which the jury
could conclude that Parker had been responsible for the attempts to clean up
the flat. It does not follow from Parker's acquittal, that the jury were
unsure that she, rather than someone else, had tidied up the flat after the
killing. The judge correctly directed the jury that if they thought that she
may have tidied up simply to clean up the sickening mess of blood and broken
glass without any intention to protect the killers, they should find her not
guilty. On the evidence admissible against her, we think that represents the
most likely basis for their verdict.
19. If so, the jury would have been entitled to consider that unless Horrill
had indeed been present, and involved in the attack, Parker would not have been
present at the scene of the killing herself, nor stayed behind to clear up the
mess. Although Mr Aspinall challenged the way in which the judge directed the
jury on this issue, in our view that was plainly a factor worthy of
consideration by the jury.
20. Despite the efforts to clean up, extensive blood staining remained. Among
other matters, Jones' blood was found in large quantities on a pair of boots
which may have belonged to him (his body was unshod), but which may have been
used in the attack on him. That pair of boots was responsible for three partial
foot marks on his jeans. His blood was found on a mat and a net curtain,
stowed away in Somerfield bags, most of which bore Parker's finger impressions.
Impressions made by Horrill's right thumb and right palm were found in what was
alleged to be Jones' blood smeared on the centre panel of the inside of the
living room door. They were separated by several inches, so they represented at
least two separate touchings. We must return later to the evidence in respect
of this last matter in more detail as it raises the most important point
addressed in Horrill's appeal. In essence, although there were numerous other
prints found in the flat which had been made by Horrill, they could have been
explained as a result of innocent contact when he was invited into the flat.
If however the prints in the centre panel were his, and it was common ground
between the experts on both sides that they were his prints, and they were made
in Jones' blood, this would provide extremely powerful evidence against him.
21. The police found a pair of boots and a leather jacket and a burnt,
shortened golf club at Danny Northey's address, 8 Ward Place. The boots were
under a sink. They had been washed and they were still soaking wet, but
air-borne droplets of blood matching that of Jones were found around the lace
area. An impression from a sole similar to that of the boots was found in blood
in a hallway of 4 Elm Terrace. The jacket was found in the hallway at the foot
of the stairs. There was evidence that Baker had been wearing a similar jacket
on earlier occasions. He was seen by police in the early hours of Sunday, 22
February, wearing a similar jacket. A button torn from the jacket was found in
Baker's flat when it was searched after Jones' body was found. Blood stains on
the jacket matched Jones' and Baker's blood. The shortened golf club was found
in the garden of 8 Ward Place. It would have been capable of causing the
channel-like dent in Jones' skull, if wielded with sufficient force.
22. None of Jones' blood was found on the clothing or footwear which Horrill
or Parker was wearing at the time of arrest, three days after the killing.
23. Horrill did not answer questions when interviewed by the police after his
arrest on 25 February. When interviewed, Baker told the police that at about 3
or 3.30am on Sunday 22 February, he had "bumped" Addison's window, where he had
put wood in. He had found Bob's (Jones') body and covered it with a blanket.
So he was the first person to find the body, and he stayed in the flat, unable
to move, for a while. Then he left, ending up at Danny's.
24. Mr Aspinall's principal submission to this court was that the prosecution
case against Horrill depended on proving that his right thumb and palm were
impressed in Jones's blood smeared on the centre panel of the inside of the
door. If that was proved, it was conceded that there was a very powerful case
that Horrill was present at the killing. Without evidence to that effect,
however, there was, Mr Aspinall submitted, no case against him. It was for that
reason, so Mr Aspinall submitted, that the prosecution set out to prove what
was required by expert forensic evidence. He went on to argue that upon
analysis, the prosecution failed to prove that the vital impressions were made
in blood rather than another protein. Alternatively, if they were in blood at
all, the evidence did not establish that the blood came from Jones, rather than
Horrill himself, from the finger injury he had sustained on 19 February. So
there was no case for Horrill to answer, and the judge had wrongly rejected a
submission to that effect at the close of the prosecution case.
25. Following the judge's ruling, neither Baker, nor Horrill, nor Parker gave
evidence. At the conclusion of the evidence, the judge summed the case up to
the jury. He reminded them that there was no direct evidence against either
Horrill or Baker. He pointed out that the Crown was inviting the jury to draw
the inference from all the evidence that both Horrill and Baker had attacked
Jones, and caused his death. Subject to the specific criticisms noted later in
this judgment, the judge's directions of law were accurate and complete. Given
the nature of the evidence in this case, it is important for us to emphasise,
in particular, that he explained to the jury the correct way to approach
circumstantial evidence, with appropriate warnings about the need for caution,
and the clear distinction to be made, and maintained, between proper inference
and mere speculation. He returned to the same point towards the end of his
summing up, where again he reminded the jury of the differences between direct
and circumstantial evidence, and how they should approach circumstantial
evidence, underlining the necessity for them to distinguish between "arriving
at conclusions based upon reliable circumstantial evidence and mere
speculation".
26. Mr Aspinall submitted that even if the judge was right to leave the case
against Horrill to the jury, he should have expressly directed them that it was
not proved that the two impressions made by Horrill, found on the door,
appeared in Jones' blood. Therefore they were of no more significance than his
fingerprints found elsewhere in the flat. At the very least, he contended, the
technical nature of the expert evidence demanded an analysis by the judge, for
the jury, far beyond that which was given.
27. In order to judge the submissions that there was no case to answer, and
that the summing up in relation to the expert evidence was inadequate, the
effect of the evidence relating to the print impressions on the door must be
summarised in greater detail.
28. A forensic scientist, Geoffrey Robinson, attended the scene and noticed
that on the central panel of the living room side of the door there was a main,
obvious area of contact blood staining. He could see what appeared to be ridge
marks in blood. Although he was satisfied that what he was looking at was
blood, he applied a chemical known as LMG, which is a presumptive test for
blood, in an area adjacent to one of the ridge impressions, but not involving
the impression itself, which might have rendered it useless for identification
purposes. He obtained a positive result. Later a substance known as amido black
was applied to the central panel of the door. This stains any white surface
(such as this door) light blue, but reacts to protein and stains any area
impressed with a protein a darker shade of blue. So all protein marks
(including those which may not have been obvious to the naked eye) are
enhanced. It is not only blood which contains protein. As was made clear in the
evidence, other protein can be found in milky drinks, cheese, gravy and nasal
secretions.
29. The complications arise in this way. There are a number of very obvious
finger tip impressions on the door which, perhaps because of excess blood on
the fingers, have not left identifiable marks. Enhanced by the amido black,
however, are two areas, representing two contact touches with what it is
conceded were Horrill's right thumb and right palm. Although in the close
general vicinity, these marks were not linked by position necessarily to fit in
with the obvious finger tip impressions and there was no suggestion that such a
link could be made. Were those the marks which Mr Robinson saw, in what he said
was blood? He answered: "I may have seen those marks. I am not suggesting the
ridge marks I saw were those marks. I do not recall exactly." It was suggested
by Mr Aspinall that he had not seen those marks in blood and he said: "I can
neither agree with you or disagree. I have a record of seeing blood stained
marks in this locality and this locality. I haven't got the precise detail that
would agree with you there, but I would not agree with you that I didn't see
them." The effect of his evidence was that he had seen blood, and
"visualised" blood stains. Mr Robinson then referred (in re-examination) to
recording in his notes that in his opinion, blood staining on the living room
side of the door may have been deposited by blood stained fingers or a blood
stained hand.
30. Moving on to the LMG presumptive test for blood, Mr Robinson was shown a
photograph of the vicinity of Horrill's identified marks. Mr Aspinall's
cross-examination went on:
"Q ........ Are you able to give us any indication of how close you came to
either of those marks with a positive test for blood?
A No, I don't think I can. No.
Q So the position is this: you cannot rule out the possibility
that any test was no less than inches away from each of those marks?
A Inches - yes, certainly testing within this locality here,
probably on the periphery here, and in this locality here."
He agreed that he had no records but said that he was familiar with the way he
undertakes his testing at scenes of crime.
31. Mr Robinson also obtained specimens for DNA analysis. The relevant specimen
(on a cotton bud) was obtained from a rather wider area than the immediate
vicinity of Horrill's thumb and palm impressions (although it included both
those areas). He said that his swabbing "encompassed all of the areas that
were referentially enhanced as possible blood marks". DNA is not, of course,
only picked up in blood; it can also be identified from saliva, sweat and other
bodily secretions. In any event, the result of the analysis revealed a mixture
of DNA with a distinct major component which matched (with a high match
probability) the DNA of the deceased, but with other minor component DNA which
fell within a much larger group from which Horrill could not be excluded. It
was common ground between the experts that unless the actual marks were tested,
it was not possible to say whether the marks were, in fact, blood. Mr Webster
(the scientist called by the defence) made the point that even if Mr Robinson
was looking at the mark which in fact bore Horrill's print impressions, it was
the common experience of forensic scientists that a reddish brown stain might
be thought to be blood and then be found not to be. He also expressed himself
forcefully to the effect that unless the actual marks were tested, it was not
possible to say that they were in blood, let alone whether in the blood of the
deceased or, even if it was, when the blood had been shed. Dr Whitaker, who
gave evidence of DNA matches, agreed that if a test were not carried out on the
particular print, it could not be said as a matter of scientific fact that the
particular print had been made in blood.
32. So there is some force in Mr Aspinall's contention that the scientific
evidence relating to LMG presumptive identification of blood, amido black
highlighting of protein and prints, and swabs revealing Jones' DNA on the
central panel of the door, did not on its own, as a matter of scientific
certainty, combine to prove that Horrill's thumb and palm had left impressions
in Jones' blood on the door. But the scientific evidence did not stand alone,
in our view - far from it. As Mr Michael Hubbard Q.C., for the Crown,
contended, the scientific evidence and the conclusions which scientists might
be prepared to draw from them, were to be taken and judged with all the other
evidence laid before the jury.
33. We shall not repeat all the relevant evidence in detail. But we note that
the case that Baker was one of Jones' attackers was overwhelming, and the jury
concluded that he was guilty of murder. There was evidence that as well as
Baker, Horrill had reason to be and had expressed anger against Jones, and that
he was with Jones and Baker on the evening of Saturday, 21 February, and that
Parker had helped to clear up the scene after the fatal attack had taken
place.
34. In the course of the fatal attack upon him, a vast quantity of Jones' blood
was shed. It was open to the jury to conclude that it was much more likely
that the protein highlighted by amido black on the central panel of the door
(sufficiently evenly spread to form ridge impressions which fingerprint experts
could identify) was blood rather than nasal mucus, or food, or something
similar. It was also more likely that the blood had come from Jones rather
than from a trivial cut on a finger of Horrill's left hand, impressed onto the
central panel by his right hand, as a result of two separate contacts with that
hand. And, of course, it was open to them to conclude that Robinson had indeed
seen these prints in blood when he arrived at the scene.
35. In our view, from all the circumstances proved by admissible evidence
against him, the jury, properly directed, could safely conclude, (if they
chose), that Horrill and Baker had killed Jones, and in the course of the
incident, or its immediate aftermath, Horrill had left the marks of his bloody
right hand on the central panel of the door. The judge was correct, in our
judgment, to leave Horrill's case to the jury. Indeed, he would have been
usurping their function if he had withdrawn it. We therefore turn to Mr
Aspinall's second submission, which was that the judge failed to direct the
jury properly on this issue.
36. The judge more than once reminded the jury of the importance of deciding
whether they were sure that Horrill's right thumb and palm marks on the door
were made in blood, or some other protein, and in Jones' blood, rather than
someone else's blood, in particular the blood of Horrill himself, from the
finger he cut on 19 February. He stressed the importance of this issue and
directed the jury in clear terms.
"The issue that has occupied a great deal of court time, perfectly properly,
concerned the question of whether those marks were made in blood, as the
prosecution maintain, or whether you cannot be sure that the marks were made in
blood because the forensic evidence is inconclusive, as the defence
maintain..... Are you sure that the finger and palm impressions of Mr Horrill
on the door were in blood, or may it be that they are in some other protein
based substance?"
He went on:
"If you are not sure that the thumb and palm impression of Mr Horrill was in
blood, but think that there is a reasonable possibility that it was in a milky
drink, or cheese, or gravy, or nasal secretions, then you may conclude that it
is of no assistance to the prosecution in establishing Mr Horrill's guilt. If,
however, you are sure, looking at the totality of the evidence, the marks found
can only have been made in blood, you must go on to consider the second issue,
namely, whether you can safely conclude that the blood in which the mark was
found is the blood of the deceased man. If it is in Mr Horrill's blood, it is
worthless. However, as Mr Webster was to accept, the finding of a finger
impression in the blood of the deceased at the scene of a crime such as this,
is powerful evidence that the person leaving the finger print was present at
the time that the crime was committed."
37. Having explained the issue, the judge identified the essential witnesses
whose evidence bore on it. He summarised the evidence of Mr Robinson, Mr
Webster, and Dr Whitaker. He reminded them of Mr Aspinall's submissions that
the forensic evidence that the marks were in blood, and in Jones' blood, was
deeply flawed. He pointed out the criticism that, having recognised the
presence of identifiable marks, Mr Robinson had been anxious that his own
examination and swab taking should not disturb or interfere with the prints
himself. Whether in truth he was to be criticised for not taking swabs
directly from the area in which the prints had actually been made is neither
here nor there, although for what it is worth, we can readily understand his
decision. What mattered was that the jury was reminded that the swabs had not
been taken from the area of the prints themselves. The judge reminded the
jury of all the relevant criticisms, and they can have been left in no doubt
about the contentions advanced on Horrill's behalf, that they could not :
"................ be sure that the palm and thumb impression made by Mr
Horrill were in the blood of the deceased. It may have been in some other
protein based substance, or if in blood you cannot be sure that they were in
the deceased's blood, because the stain analysed by Dr Whitaker came from the
whole area, not just the two identified finger impression areas."
38. In our judgment, the judge's directions in respect of the expert evidence,
and the issues relating to Horrill's thumb and palm impression were adequate.
He was not required to go further and direct the jury as Mr Aspinall submitted
he should, that the evidence did not prove that Horrill's hand impressions
appeared in Jones' blood on the door. The jury had to consider the scientific
evidence together with all the rest of the evidence, and reach their verdict on
the whole of it.
39. Mr Aspinall took further points in his oral and written argument.
40. Firstly, he contended that Horrill's defence was an alibi, and that the
judge should have expressly directed the jury that it was for the prosecution
to disprove the alibi, before he could be found guilty. But Horrill did not
give evidence that he was in some other place or places than Baker's flat at
the time or over the period when Jones was killed there. His defence was simply
that he was not proved to be present when Jones was killed. Of course, Mr
Aspinall on his behalf prayed in aid the evidence of Mr Smale and Mr Sharpe of
voices in Donna Parker's flat at some time between midnight and 4am, and during
the summing-up the judge referred to Mr Aspinall's submission that:
"The evidence of Sharpe and Smale, of what they heard and saw at 225 Grenville
Road in the early hours of the morning of 22 February is such as to provide an
alibi for Mr Horrill for most of the time during which the killing must have
occurred."
The judge went on to direct the jury:
"I refer, in summarising Mr Horrill's case, to the evidence of Mr Sharpe and
Mr Smale, and speaking there of an alibi. `Alibi' is a Latin word ...... that
simply means `elsewhere' .... It is ..... important that you should understand
the legal position. There is no burden on a defendant to raise an alibi. Still
less is there a burden on him to prove it. It has been raised in this case
through his counsel, who submits as I have reminded you, that the evidence of
Sharpe and Smale provide him with an alibi for the time of the killing. Whether
they do is a matter for you."
41. Taken with the judge's earlier, impeccable direction on the burden and
standard of proof, this was a proper and sufficient direction, in the
circumstances of Horrill's case. No more was required.
42. Mr Aspinall further contended that the judge failed sufficiently to
emphasise to the jury the danger of acting upon the evidence of Wraith unless
they were sure that he was truthful. He suggested that the judge should have
directed the jury that, significantly, there was no independent evidence
supporting the correctness of Wraith's claimed recognition of Horrill, Baker
and Jones. But the judge reminded the jury of Wraith's lifestyle and drinking
habits, and the police evidence that he was seen drunk on the afternoon of
Saturday, 21 February, and that he originally placed his observation of
Horrill, Baker and Jones on the Sunday evening. He asked the jury to take
account of all the criticisms made of Wraith, in judging the reliability, if
any, of his evidence. That was sufficient.
43. Mr Aspinall criticised the way in which the prosecution adduced evidence of
the presence of Jones' DNA on the door, but this adds nothing to his principal
argument.
44. Finally, Mr Aspinall criticised the prosecution's failure to disclose that,
some six months before he was killed, Addison had complained to the police that
Baker had attacked him in Jones' presence. Baker was arrested but the
prosecution was dropped. It was contended that earlier disclosure of this
information, which appeared after the jury had retired, would have strengthened
the suggestion that Addison was involved in the killing of Jones; after such an
attack it was implausible that Addison would have waited for Baker late at
night in the downstairs flat at Elm Terrace. There was in fact no evidential
basis at all for any sensible suggestion that Addison, rather than Horrill,
joined forces with Baker to kill Jones, and the judge's ruling that the case
should proceed without an adjournment at that late stage was well within the
proper ambit of his judicial discretion, and in the result, would not affect
the safety of this conviction.
45. For all these reasons Horrill's appeal will be dismissed.
46. Baker's renewed application for leave to appeal against his conviction is
based, first, upon a contention that the judge's decision to allow the jury to
deliberate into Saturday, 3 July 1999, in order to finish the trial by the end
of the second week, prejudiced the jury and may have caused them to rush their
deliberations. But there is nothing to suggest that the jury was put, or felt,
under any pressure of time. They returned their verdict on Baker at 12.12pm and
continued with their deliberations thereafter before convicting Horrill.
47. Second, Baker contends that it was unfair of the judge to invite the jury
to conclude that Jones was killed at 3am on 22 February, the time when Baker
had returned to his flat, according to his account to the police. But the
evidence at trial plainly pointed to killing at about 3am.
48. Finally, Baker made essentially the same criticism as Horrill of the
judge's treatment of Wraith's evidence. There is no more to this point in the
case of Baker than there is in the case of Horrill.
49. When rejecting Baker's application for leave to appeal against conviction,
the Single Judge observed:
"The evidence against you was overwhelming. The judge in his summing-up
correctly directed the jury as to the law and fairly summarised the factual
issues."
We agree with the Single Judge. Baker's renewed application for leave to
appeal is refused.
© 2001 Crown Copyright
