R v Mathurin 2025
The police were preparing to execute a search warrant at a flat occupied by B and S when, before entering, M pulled up in a van in the car park outside. M remained in the van, and after a time B cycled up to the van and spoke to him before leaving and going into his flat. A short time later, M got out of the van and entered the flat carrying a branded drawstring bag and subsequently exited the flat without it. M left the area in his van.
During the execution of the warrant a short time later, the bag was found by officers to contain layers of packaging and just under 1 kilogram of the class A drug, heroin. M briefly went back to the flat while the police were there and was subsequently caught after initially running away.
A forensic examination of the packaging of the drugs revealed M's fingerprints on the outside of the bag, but they were not found on the inner bags which held the drugs.
The prosecution case was that M had conveyed the drugs in the bag to B in the flat. B pleaded guilty to an offence of supplying a controlled drug of Class A and that conviction was adduced in evidence, as was a previous conviction of M for a drugs offence.
The defence case was that M visited the address to drop off a charger and tools (which he stated were in the van) and that the charger had been put into the bag. M gave evidence to that effect.
During cross-examination, the prosecution posed some initial questions and the judge asked a few questions for clarification. The prosecution then began to test and challenge M’s account and the judge then intervened to also challenge M’s account. It also appeared that the prosecution would then in effect take up a line of questioning that had been initiated by the judge.
M was convicted of supplying a controlled drug of Class A, contrary to section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
M appealed against his conviction on the single ground that the conviction was unsafe because of the number and nature of questions the trial judge asked during his cross-examination. It was asserted the judge intervened, not only to clarify circumstances but to test and challenge M's defence which conveyed scepticism and demonstrated bias in favour of the prosecution. The defence argued the interventions gave the impression the judge and prosecution had formed a 'tag team' which, undermined the impartiality required of the judge - compromising the fairness of the trial.
Conversely, whilst the prosecution recognised some of the judge’s interventions may have been excessive, they argued the judge’s directions and summing-up did maintain the fairness of the trail. They argued M's conviction was born out of strong evidence, including the presence of M's fingerprints on the bag and the lack of validity to the account M relied upon.
Held
Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered.
In their ruling, the court of appeal drew on the principles from R v Inns and Inns [2018]. In this case, it was determined that significant judicial intervention was necessary to assist the jury with their questions and did not render the convictions unsafe. This case highlighted the importance of a judge remaining neutral in proceedings and avoiding testing a defendant's defence improperly. Additionally, it affirmed the legal system's adversarial nature and the jury's role as the only tribunal of fact.
In the present case, the court determined that although M was convicted on seemingly strong prosecution evidence, the trial judge’s interventions tested M's account and appeared to be him developing a line of questioning, and as such went beyond the limits of permissible clarification. The nature of the judge’s questions were testing M's account in a manner which pointed out weaknesses in it and would have left the jury with an impression that he was sceptical about M’s defence, and this gave the jury the appearance that the judge was taking sides. Therefore, undermining the fairness of the trial and weakening M's defence on the key issue of credibility which, was critical to the jury's verdict. Although the court noted that the judge's summing-up and legal directions were fair and correct, the judge’s interventions during proceedings likely affected the jury’s assessment of M's defence which, could not be remedied by the summing up and directions. This was in conflict with the principles of judicial neutrality highlighted in R v Inns and Inns [2018]. While judicial intervention can on occasion be necessary to ensure clarity or fairness, on this occasion the interventions made M's conviction unsafe.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
