Trial - Robbery - Submission of no case to answer

R v Archer: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division (Lord Justice Richards, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith, Mr Justice Underhill): 27 September 2011

On 14 September 2010, at a multi-storey car park, the defendant, aged 22, the co-defendant, H, and another companion, got into a car owned, and driven, by the victim, J. At their request, J drove them to different locations, while they snorted cocaine in the back of the car (count one: kidnapping). J's car stopped at another car park where two cars were parked a short distance from each other. The occupants of both cars were known to each other and to the defendant and co-defendant.

H got out of J's car, walked over to one of the cars, which was owned by P, threatened its occupants, and stole a mobile phone from K (count three: robbery). The defendant got out of J's car and went to the second vehicle, owned by A. He spoke to A and then removed the car keys from the ignition. A retrieved the keys. The defendant grabbed A by the throat and raised his fist (count four: common assault). A drove off. The defendant and H were arrested.

The prosecution case on count one was that, in a joint enterprise, they had compelled J to let them into his car and that they had threatened him to drive them around. In respect of count three, the prosecution case was that the defendant's actions, in respect of A, constituted participation in the robbery in that the defendant had sought to restrain A from intervening in the robbery in any way. At the trial, A agreed in cross-examination, that, at the time of the robbery, he had thought that the defendant had been trying to steal his car.

The defendant denied kidnapping and robbery but he pleaded guilty to common assault. The judge acceded to a submission of no case to answer in respect of count two (blackmail) but rejected a submission of no case to answer in relation to counts one and three. H pleaded guilty to robbery. In his summing up, the judge gave a standard direction on joint enterprise, adding that if the defendant had agreed with H to commit robbery and if he had assisted in the robbery by preventing A from leaving, he would be guilty of robbery.

She further directed that merely being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove guilt. The defendant was convicted of counts one and three and sentenced to three years and seven months' imprisonment. He appealed against conviction.

He submitted that the judge had erred in: (i) declining to withdraw count three from the jury where there was insufficient evidence, notwithstanding the guilty plea on count four, on which a jury, properly directed, could convict; and (ii) in directing the jury on the basis of a conspiracy to rob on the erroneous factual basis that the defendant had agree with H to get out of the car and rob the victims. The appeal would be dismissed.

(i) In the instant case, the judge had not erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer in respect of count three. There was no reason why the admission to count four should not have been relied on as further evidence of participation in the robbery. Further, it had been open to the jury to infer that the defendant's actions towards A had been directed to supporting or assisting H in the robbery. It followed that the judge had properly decided to leave count three before the jury.

(ii) The judge had properly directed the jury in relation to joint enterprise. She had given a general direction on joint enterprise. Moreover, she had directed that merely being present at the scene of the crime was not enough to prove guilt. Looking at the direction overall, there could be no problem with it. It followed that the conviction was safe.

Liam Walker (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.Simon Wilshire (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.