England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		6 July 2009

1. MR JUSTICE JACK: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction following refusal of leave by the single judge. The applicant is Stephen Woolfall, aged 28. On 27 March 2008 in the Crown Court at Bolton he was convicted of the attempted murder of David Sneddon. He had previously pleaded guilty to attempting to pervert the course of justice by burning the clothes he had been wearing when Mr Sneddon had been attacked and by disposing of his shoes. His co-defendant, James McGarvey, was acquitted of attempted murder.
2. James Sneddon was a man aged 49. He was an alcoholic and lived alone. He had an open house policy towards those who drank with him. The prosecution case was that in the early hours of 14 July 2007 the appellant and McGarvey had gone round to Mr Sneddon's house with three others. All had been drinking heavily and the applicant had been behaving strangely, in particular with two lump hammers. After the other three had left, Mr Sneddon was the victim of a sustained and brutal beating with fists, feet and elbows. A tooth was found in a lung. At the trial he was still suffering from such cognitive impairment that he could not give evidence. He came very close to death.
3. It was the prosecution case that the attack was carried out primarily by the appellant and that McGarvey joined in; a case of joint enterprise.
4. It is submitted to us today by Mr Morris that the Crown was not entitled to put the case that the applicant took the leading role in the attack because it was based on speculation. It was, in our view, a case that they were plainly entitled to advance and they had good grounds for putting it before the jury.
5. Complaint is also made about the cross-examination of the applicant on behalf of the prosecution. Mr Cadwallader took the applicant through his story, getting him to explain it and testing it to reveal its weaknesses. He made it clear on frequent occasions that he was not accepting it, for example, by the use of "you say". On one occasion he said, "I do not accept this, but this is your version we are going through."
6. The applicant knew very well that the prosecution alleged that it was primarily the applicant who carried out the attack on Mr Sneddon and he cannot have thought that the prosecution had changed its position and was accepting his story. Nonetheless, it is submitted that the cross-examination encouraged the applicant to exaggerate his account of the attack being carried out by McGarvey and so to destroy his own credibility with the jury. It is submitted that the cross-examination was improper, that the applicant's leading counsel should have intervened to prevent it and that the judge should have directed the jury in a manner to undo the harm that had been done. We reject those submissions.
7. A particular passage is referred to on page 14 of the cross-examination where Mr Cadwallader suggested to the applicant that he was telling the truth in his description of the events, save for one matter which, he said, "we will come to in a moment". He then said:

"It is detailed, you give a precise description of the blows, where they were landing, how the blood was flying and so forth?

A. Yes.

Q. You gave, subject to the matter I have just dealt with, an accurate description of events in the kitchen, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I suggest you are accurate, save for one thing: I suggest that you have reversed roles?

A. No, not at all.

Q. That what actually happened was, it was you that was the principal assailant, that is right, is it not?

A. No, it's not."

8. It is suggested that those questions should not have been asked and were unfair. We disagree. In our view the whole of the cross-examination the applicant was entirely proper. The applicant cannot have been misled or put in a false position. There is nothing in this application for leave.
9. There is also an application for an extension of time. We do not find the explanation wholly satisfactory, but we will not hold that against the applicant and will grant the extension of time. The application for leave to appeal against the conviction is, however, refused.