Romolo v R

The applicant's other submissions

1. I add that if it had been necessary to deal with it, I would have rejected the applicant's alternative submission that parts of the trial judge's directions were liable to confuse the jury, in particular, the paragraph in the additional written directions commencing "The fact that persons other than the accused and Hamzy … " (see [22] above). The applicant contended that this paragraph was liable to cause confusion because the jury may have regarded that direction as inconsistent with the applicant's submission that the similarities in the activities of the applicant and Hamzy may have been explained by a third party giving them instructions independently, rather than by an agreement between them. The primary judge referred to this submission in his Summing-Up and, in my view, the jury would have been in no doubt that it was required to consider that submission, notwithstanding what was said in the trial judge's supplementary written directions. The directions complained of simply emphasised the need for the jury to find an agreement between the applicant and Hamzy, irrespective of any other agreements or communications they may have had with other persons. My view is supported by the fact that the applicant's trial counsel (who was an experienced senior counsel) agreed with the terms of the supplementary written directions. This indicated that he saw no reasonable prospect of the jury being confused by them.
2. Similarly, I would not have accepted the applicant's complaint concerning a passage at p 26 of the Summing-Up which, if read in isolation, might be taken to suggest that it was sufficient for the Crown to prove that the applicant and Hamzy entered into agreements with other people, and not with each other. However, the primary judge said the contrary on numerous occasions. As a result, in my view, the jury would have been left in no doubt that in order to convict the applicant it was necessary for it to be satisfied to the requisite standard that the applicant and Hamzy made an agreement with each other. Again, my view is supported by the absence of objection at trial by the applicant's senior counsel.