On 7th March 2025, Annabel Hazlitt appeared in the Court of Appeal, successful in appealing a conviction from the Crown Court at Southampton. The issue in the case concerned disclosure of evidence to the jury after they had retired to consider their verdict.
The case centred on whether the Appellant was the driver of a stolen car involved in a high-speed police chase. The Crown’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, notably including a grey hoodie found near where the appellant was arrested, and the appellant’s inconsistent accounts of his whereabouts. The issue in the case was one of identification, and the appellant was charged with dangerous driving and aggravated vehicle taking.
During jury deliberations, the jury discovered a bank card belonging to the appellant’s partner inside the hoodie—evidence not previously known to the parties or the court. The defence applied to discharge the jury, arguing that this amounted to new evidence introduced after the jury had retired, depriving the appellant of the opportunity to address it. There were also significant issues over continuity of evidence, with the Police conceding they had never examined the hoodie. The trial judge refused to discharge the jury, and the appellant was convicted.
On appeal, Annabel’s submissions were described as “helpful, focused, and succinct”, and the Court held that the discovery of the bank card constituted new evidence introduced after the jury had retired. Not only that, but it was significant in linking the appellant to the hoodie and, by extension, to the offence. The appellant had no opportunity to address this evidence, and the judge had no chance to direct the jury on how to treat it. The Court concluded that this irregularity rendered the conviction unsafe and quashed both convictions.
The Crown initially sought a retrial, and subsequently offered no evidence, on the basis that there was not a realistic prospect of conviction.
The full judgment is reported here: R v Stuttle, [2025] EWCA Crim 256
