R v Thomas Lewin [2026] EWCA Crim 450

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2026] EWCA Crim 450Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 24 March 2026
Before
LORD JUSTICE STUART-SMITHMRS JUSTICE O’FARRELLCOMMON SERJEANT OF LONDON(HIS HONOUR JUDGE MARKS KC)(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
THOMAS LEWIN__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________NON-COUNSEL APPLICAITON_________JUDGMENTMRS JUSTICE O'FARRELL:
[1]On 2 May 2025 at the Wolverhampton Crown Court before HHJ Meegan, the appellant, Thomas Lewin, was convicted on two counts of criminal damage. On the same date he was sentenced to a fine of £500 on count 1 with no separate sentence for count 2. He was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £200, compensation in the sum of £2,000 and to contribute to the costs of the prosecution in the sum of £4,380. He was also made subject to a restraining order until 2 May 2030, whereby he must not contact nor attend any address of Stuart Brady (the complainant) on count 1.[2]The appellant appeals against his conviction by leave of the Single Judge on two grounds, namely that(i) the trial judge wrongly directed the jury on the issue of identification evidence and(ii) the trial judge failed to identify sufficiently the evidence that the appellant relied on in support of his alibi defence.[3]The material background facts are as follows. In 2018 Mr Brady rented an annex building from the appellant for approximately 3 months. On termination of the tenancy there had been a degree of animosity between the two men. In the early hours of Sunday 2024 April 2022, damage was caused to two vehicles belonging to Mr Brady and his partner, Sukhvir Kaur (the complainant on count 2), parked on the driveway outside their home address. An individual poured liquid on the vehicles causing paintwork damage to both vehicles. Neither Mr Bradley nor Ms Kaur saw the person who caused the damage and there were no other witnesses to the incident but part of the incident was captured on CCTV footage which covered the front of their address. The CCTV footage showed a man pull something out of his jacket pocket before pouring liquid over the roof of the first vehicle. The man then walked off the driveway for a few minutes before returning to pour liquid over the second vehicle.[4]Mr Brady viewed the CCTV footage and identified the appellant as the man who caused the damage. Police obtained further CCTV footage near the appellant's home address. This was said to show the appellant leaving his home address in a vehicle on the night of Saturday 23 April 2022 at 23.25 and returning at 0.23, on Sunday 24 April 2022.[5]In a police interview on 14 October 2022 the appellant denied that he was the man seen in the CCTV footage. He said that he had been told that Mr Brady had moved away from the area and that he did not know where he now lived. When asked where he was around midnight on 24 April 2022 the appellant replied that he did not know. He thought that he had been away at the time, possibly on the south coast on his way to France in his camper motorhome. He was shown the CCTV footage from his home address. He said that he did not know if the man seen leaving and returning had been him or not, but it was his driveway, and therefore he would assume that it had been him. He said that he did sometimes go out at night to the supermarket but also that one of his neighbours had access to his vehicle to keep the battery charged whilst he was away.[6]The prosecution case was that the appellant caused the damage to both vehicles. Mr Brady gave evidence that the CCTV footage covered the front of his address. He knew the appellant and recognised him as the man in the footage from the width of the face, the body shape, the walk and the fact that he was an older person.[7]The prosecution also relied on what was said to be distinctive clothing. A jacket with two fluorescent stripes worn by the man seen on the night of the incident on CCTV footage, carrying out the damage outside the complainant's property, and by the man seen on separate CCTV footage leaving and arriving at the appellant's house.[8]The defence was that although Mr Brady had known the appellant and should have been able to recognise him, he had been mistaken in his identification. The appellant had in fact been in North Wales at the time of the offence. Ground 1. The identification evidence[9]Ground 1 is whether the trial judge wrongly directed the jury on the issue of identification evidence in his summing-up and/or in response to a question from the jury. The judge’s summing-up[10]When summing-up to the jury the trial judge provided written directions which he took the jury through orally, including directions on the issue of identification:
"Stuart Brady says that it is the defendant on the CCTV footage whereas the defendant has said that it is not. Identification: this is the meat or the core of what this case is all about. You do not have any evidence from a witness who was at the scene of the criminal damage. What you do have is evidence from Stuart Brady who knows the defendant and who has looked at the CCTV footage taken from the scene. The defence case is that although this witness knows the defendant, and should be able to recognise him, they are mistaken in their identification of the defendant as the person shown on the footage. You may consider this evidence in two ways. First, it is evidence of the identification of the defendant from the footage. Secondly, you may also use this evidence to help you compare what you have seen of the defendant in court with the footage of the incident."
[11]The judge warned the jury of the need for caution when considering this evidence and making comparisons between the footage and the defendant as set out in paragraph 15 of the written directions. He pointed out the risk of mistaken identification including a genuine and honest mistake:
"…the person to be mistaken, no matter how honest and convinced they are. A person may be mistaken even when they could be expected to recognise someone, because of previous knowledge of him."
[12]The judge also warned the jury that the quality of the footage might affect the ability of the witness to identify the appellant and the ability of the jury to make comparison.[13]As set out in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the written legal directions regarding identification evidence

the judge told the jury as follows:

"If you decide that the quality of the footage is not good enough for a fair comparison to be made, you must ignore this identification evidence and not embark on any comparison of your own. However, if you are satisfied that the quality of the footage is good enough for a fair comparison to be made, then you must then decide whether taking account of this identification evidence and your own observations the defendant is the person shown."
The defence rely on the defendant's responses in interview and his evidence to you in court that he is not the person on the footage. If having considered all the evidence you are sure that the person on the footage is the defendant, you would find him guilty. If you are not sure that the person on the footage is the defendant, you must find him not guilty." Jury questions[14]During their deliberations the jury wrote a note for

the judge as follows:

"Please can it be confirmed what is meant by points 15, 16 and 17 in the legal directions? Do we discount evidence if we feel the footage is not able to identify anyone, including victim statements?"
[15]The judge raised the jury note with counsel and discussed an appropriate response to the jury after consideration of the written directions and the Crown Court Compendium. The jury were given the following additional direction:
"So, first of all, I have to emphasise that there are two separate points here. One is identification of the defendant potentially by you, the jury, looking at the footage and comparing it to the defendant. The second is identification of the defendant by the witness, Mr Brady. So they are two distinct exercises, okay, that are separate. So what is meant by looking at paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 is this and I will just take it slowly and break it up: 'If you decide that the quality of the footage is not good enough for a fair comparison to be made -- that is by you, the jury -- you must ignore this identification evidence and not embark upon any comparison of your own. However, if you are satisfied that the quality of the footage is good enough for a fair comparison to be made, then you must then decide, taking account of this identification evidence and by that I mean of Mr Brady, and your own observations the defendant is the person shown.' Then 16 and 17: 'The defence rely on the defendant's responses in interview and his evidence to you in court that he is not the person on the footage. ' That is what the defence say: 'If having considered all the evidence you are sure that the person on the footage is the defendant, you would find him guilty. If you are not sure that the person on the footage is the [defendant] you must find him not guilty.' So there are two distinct separate points there and to answer the second question: do we discount evidence if we feel the footage is not able to identify anyone? The short answer is no; you don't necessarily discount the evidence of Mr Brady because that is separate to you embarking upon your own exercise. I hope that is clear. Because there is potentially a risk of conflating, of merging the two together, but they are two separate points. But if you need any further assistance, please do ask..."
Discussion[16]The ground of appeal is that the judge wrongly directed the jury that if they decided that the quality of the CCTV footage was not good enough for fair identification comparisons to be made, then Mr Brady's identification evidence might still be taken into account and could be capable of leading to a conviction.[17]In Attorney-General's Reference No 2 of 2002 [2002] EWCA Crim 2373, Rose LJ held that there were at least four circumstances in which, subject to a sufficient warning, the jury could be invited to conclude that the defendant committed the offence on the basis of a photographic image from the scene of the crime which is admitted in evidence. We note that in R v Ozger [2022] EWCA Crim 1238, the Court noted that the list is non-exhaustive. Those circumstances include:(a) where a CCTV image is sufficiently clear the jury can compare it with the defendant's appearance in court in front of the jury and(b) where a witness knows the defendant sufficiently well to recognise the defendant as the offender shown in a CCTV image, the witness can give evidence of this. Although in many cases the results are likely to be the same, these represent two separate exercises. Indeed, we consider that conflating these separate strands of evidence could lead to confirmation bias. The result of one exercise could, in an appropriate case, corroborate or undermine the result of another. But they remain distinct. The judge, with consent from counsel on both sides, recognised that the jury should be warned against conflating the exercise.[18]As a matter of principle, it was possible for the jury to form the view that the quality of the footage was not good enough to allow them safely to make their own comparison with the appellant but, notwithstanding their inability to identify the appellant from the footage, the jury might be satisfied, so as to be sure, based on the evidence of Mr Brady, who knew the appellant, had studied the footage with great care and who therefore might be in a better position to carry out a comparison that the appellant was the man in the footage. When considering the evidence of a witness such as Mr Brady, the jury were not required to ignore what, if anything, they could see on the CCTV. So in this case, for example, even if the quality of the CCTV overall was not sufficient for the jury to be sure on the basis of their own assessment that the man was the defendant, when considering the evidence of Mr Brady they could, if appropriate, rely upon evidence such as the distinctive clothing as seen in the CCTV as supporting Mr Brady's identification of the appellant as the man in both sets of CCTV footage.[19]We recognise that there may be cases in which the quality of the CCTV footage is so poor that it could not provide any adequate basis for a jury or a witness to identify a defendant. But in this case Mr Brady explained the factors that he considered allowed him to identify the appellant as the man in the CCTV footage. That was factual evidence that was properly left to the jury.[20]In this case, there was additional evidence that was capable of providing support for the identification of the appellant as the man in the CCTV footage. There was footage of a man wearing a similar distinctive jacket getting into the appellant's vehicle outside his house and driving away shortly before the incident and returning shortly afterwards. There was also the proximity of the properties allowing the vehicle that left the appellant's house to travel to the complainant's house at the time of the incident, and return as shown on the footage. The judge was careful to repeat paragraph 18 of his written directions in his oral summing-up and when answering the jury note. The jury could not have been in any doubt that they could only convict if they were sure of the identification of the appellant as the person on footage. For those reasons we do not consider that the jury directions were flawed so as to render the conviction unsafe. Ground 2. Alibi evidence[21]Ground 2 is whether the trial judge failed to identify sufficiently the evidence that the appellant relied on in support of his alibi defence. In his summing-up the judge directed the jury as set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 of his written directions:
"Alibi. The defence is one of alibi. The defence case is the defendant was not at the scene when the crime was being committed. Defendant claims to have been in North Wales. It is for the prosecution to prove the defendant was at Stuart Brady's address in Brownhill, the defendant does not have to prove that the defendant was in North Wales. If the prosecution do prove that the defendant's alibi is false, that does not in itself mean the defendant must be guilty. It is something which you may take into account. However, you should bear in mind that sometimes an innocent person who fears that the truth will not be believed may instead invent an alibi."
[22]The judge reminded the jury of the appellant's interview with the police on 14 October 2022 and his account of where he was at the time of the incident. He referred to the absence of any attribution to the defendant's vehicle through automatic number plate recognition. The judge expressly reminded the jury of the defendant's Facebook memory showing a photograph of him at the coast, with his motorhome, in April 2022.[23]This was a very short trial and the appellant's evidence would have been fresh in the minds of the jury. In those circumstances, we consider that the judge's summing-up of the alibi evidence was suitably detailed and sufficient.[24]Turning to other grounds. The appellant, who has chosen to represent himself but has not attended court today despite being aware of this hearing, has sought leave in writing to appeal against his conviction on additional grounds. He makes a number of complaints against the conduct of his defence by his legal representatives but we refuse leave because he has failed to sign a waiver of privilege form and there is nothing of substance in the complaints for the reasons given by the Single Judge. He also makes a number of points regarding the strength or weakness of the evidence against him. But those matters were all properly left to the jury as adjudicators on the facts. Conclusion[25]For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: Rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk