R v Coates 2023


C and H were located unresponsive in a vehicle with the engine running and the lights on – C was in the driver’s seat, and his partner, H, was in the passenger seat. . Attending officers believed C and H to be under the influence of drugs and when the vehicle was searched, 2.19g of crack cocaine to a value of around £600, 21.5g of heroin said to be worth £450 and a package containing 498g of heroin, with a value of £10,200 were all found. Officers further located a knife, baton, scales, rocks of caffeine and baking soda.

Police conducted a search of the home shared by C and H and found more heroin in a safe which was valued at £10,650. Further sets of scales, a number of mobile telephones, weapons and £1,500 in cash found. A day later, H called 999 saying people in balaclavas were attempting to gain entry to their home and had set the back door on fire. The police attended and the fire was put out however, during their attendance officers located a further substantial amount of heroin found sitting on top of a metal chest and this was valued at £6,300.

H pleaded guilty to some counts on the indictment, explaining that she allowed others to store drugs in her house and vehicle as she was put under pressure by them to do so. C did not plead and gave evidence within which he stated he had no knowledge of the drugs in the vehicle or at his home but admitted to being a user of Class A drugs.
 
C was convicted of three counts of possessing controlled drugs of Class A with intent to supply, contrary to section 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (count 1 related to cocaine and counts 2 and 5 charged him with like offences of supplying quantities of heroin).
 
C made a renewed application for leave to appeal counts 2 and 5 after previously having been refused permission by a single judge on the following grounds:
 
  1. C had not been properly represented by his legal team as they had failed to call H as a witness at his trial.
  2. The judges summing up of the case comprised solely of the judge reading out the agreed facts, being the agreed evidence of a police officer.
  3. C had his notes taken from him in prison which had prevented him from making a timely application to appeal.
As well as the above, C also sought leave pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to introduce fresh evidence in the form of evidence of H.
 

Held



Application to appeal against conviction refused; convictions upheld.

The single judge refused leave on the basis that H’s evidence was hearsay and not admissible. Additionally, H had admitted that she had lied in her interview and even had H given evidence at C’s trial, it was unlikely she would have been believed. Additionally, the summing-up was adequate and the fact that much of the police evidence was uncontested did not indicate any failure by the defence counsel or judge.
 
Upon review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the judge, and stated that evidence in the case could clearly lead the jury to conclude there was intention to supply drugs and H’s guilty plea further supported it. It was open to the jury to concur that due to their relationship, the offences had been jointly committed by C and H. C’s previous convictions that had been introduced via a bad character gateway demonstrated he had propensity to supply drugs with H.

Due to the criticisms of his legal team, C waived his privilege so the court could consider the matter and respective responses. However, the court concluded on the basis of the responses that the argument had no merit. The court also considered the conduct of the case but again, found no issue and in any event, when afforded the opportunity to do so, C failed to provide any further response when asked to clarify his criticisms with the conduct of the case.