Coulthurst, R. v [2016] EWCA Crim 441

[2016] EWCA Crim 441Case No 2015/2664/C4
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Friday, 18 March 2016
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
LORD JUSTICE HAMBLEN
MR JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER
HIS HONOUR JUDGE KRAMER QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
R E G I N ACrownv
Between
CHRISTIAN COULTHURST
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph notes of WordWave International Ltd trading as DTI8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DYTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Non-Counsel Application appeared for Appellant for The Crown did not appear and were not represented
J U D G M E N T (As Approved by the Court)

JUDGE KRAMER:

[1]On 16th January 2015 at the Crown Court at Aylesbury, the applicant, now 38 years old, was convicted after a trial before Mr Recorder Soole QC and a jury of an offence of intimidation, contrary to section 51(1) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It was alleged that on 25th September 2014, knowing or believing that Alison Chester was a potential witness in proceedings for an offence, he attended her place of work and made demands for her to change her witness statement and failed to leave when required which intimidated and was intended to intimidate her, intending thereby to cause the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interfered with. On 27th May 2015 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.[2]On 14th January 2014 the applicant attended the job centre at Milton Keynes with his partner. He became involved in a violent incident with members of the staff. A security guard, the head of security, Alison Chester, witnessed the incident. The applicant was charged with offences of violence. He was bailed with conditions not to go to the job centre or to contact any of the staff.[3]On 24th September 2014 the applicant's partner went back to the job centre to ask for the identity numbers of the security officers involved. Miss Chester refused to give the details. About 20 minutes later the applicant entered the job centre and Miss Chester was alerted to his presence. It was alleged that the applicant spoke to her and told her to change her statement or she would lose her licence. He repeated that twice more. He refused to leave when asked. Miss Chester felt scared and intimidated. The police were called and arrived. The applicant continued to intimidate Miss Chester by staring at her.[4]He was arrested and interviewed. He said in interview that he had gone to the centre to obtain the identity numbers of the two guards involved in the January incident, something he said to which he was entitled. He told staff that he would wait for the police to arrive so that he could obtain that information. He denied requesting that information from Miss Chester. He maintained that he had not spoken to her at all and had made no threats to her. That was the case he put before the jury.[5]The trial began on 13th January 2015. At the lunch break on 14th January 2015 Miss Chester had not finished giving evidence. At that break the judge's clerk overheard a conversation between Miss Chester and an unknown male. The court clerk overheard the male to say "We must tell the prosecution" but heard nothing else. The matter was raised with the Recorder. It appears that he ruled the morning after the incident over lunch the day before. He declined to initiate an enquiry as a possible prelude to proceedings for contempt in the face of the court because what was said "may be entirely innocent" and the discussion may have been about the earlier alleged offence, proceedings for which were still before the Magistrates' Court. He concluded:
"There is not enough there to raise a prima facie case of contempt and that is the first basis on which I am taking the matter no further."
He ruled that the primary reason for taking no further action was that in his judgment the threshold had not been reached. He also gave as a secondary reason for not taking any further action, the fact that it was too complicated to deal with it in the middle of a trial. Miss Chester would need separate representation and another judge would probably have to deal with it.[6]The applicant was granted an extension of time of four months in which to seek leave to appeal and now renews his application for leave to appeal against his conviction following refusal by the single judge. The grounds of appeal are that the Recorder erred by wrongfully rejecting an application that the court should make an enquiry of its own motion into whether Alison Chester had committed a contempt of court by virtue of her failure to abide by the order of the court not to discuss her evidence. It is further contended that by virtue of the ruling the defence were derived of potential evidence affecting the credibility and reliability of the only prosecution witness of fact. It is not suggested that the Recorder misdirected the jury during the trial or in the summing-up or wrongfully admitted any evidence. Nor is it suggested that there was any other procedural defect in the conduct of or procedure during the trial.[7]Whilst a different court might after the lunch adjournment on 14th January 2015 have conducted an enquiry of the witness in the absence of the jury, as the single judge said there was no requirement on the Recorder to conduct some kind of enquiry. As the single judge also observed in refusing leave to appeal against conviction:
" ... the applicant and his counsel were aware of what it was said had occurred vis-a-vis the witness while the witness was still in the witness box. If counsel thought that the issue could have had a significant effect on the credibility of the witness, he could have asked her himself about it. His judgment may have been that this would have been too risky - but the decision was his to take."
In our judgment, on the evidence before this court the submissions that Miss Chester and the unknown male were discussing the ongoing case are entirely speculative. In those circumstances, we have concluded that the conviction is safe and accordingly we reject this application.