R v Willcockson

HIS HONOUR: Luke Willcockson is on trial before a jury for the murder of Paul Davy at Kendall on 22 November 2023. He has pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The basis of the guilty plea has not yet been explained.

The Crown has foreshadowed the tender of body worn video material recorded by detectives at the time of Mr Willcockson’s arrest on 26 November 2023. The Crown wishes to rely upon what Mr Willcockson said to the arresting officers at that time as a false version of events for the purpose of impugning his credit. There seems to be no issue now that Mr Willcockson lied to the police about what he knew concerning Mr Davy’s death. There is no issue that the body worn video and a prepared transcript of what was said accurately sets out the conversation between Mr Willcockson and at least two of the detectives who were present.

Mr Willcockson objects to the tender on a number of bases. First, the police who attended the house that was then occupied by Mr Willcockson in order to effect his arrest did so in a loud and forceful manner as they enter the premises. Mr Willcockson is concerned that this technique may give the jury what he insists is a prejudicially false understanding that he was dangerous and that the aggressive approach taken by police, before they can be certain that they will not be confronted with opposition to their presence, could create an unfair impression of him as a violent person.

Secondly, a large portion of the video shows Mr Willcockson being asked questions on the grass verge outside the property while he is handcuffed, dressed only in what appear to be board shorts or similar and while the camera angle somewhat unflatteringly emphasises the profile of his abdomen. Moreover, but in a related sense, that indignity is, on this argument, further exacerbated by the fact that Mr Willcockson’s face is not shown in the video, so that there is no reason to permit that part of it to be received in evidence on the credit issue: Mr Willcockson’s facial expressions cannot assist the question of whether or not or why he may be telling lies at the time if his face cannot be seen.

Mr Willcockson’s overarching concern is that the video adds nothing to the Crown case that is relevant to his credit and is potentially prejudicial to him in a way that can be avoided without weakening or adversely affecting the Crown case.

I consider that a middle course should be adopted. The audio and video of the arrest should be admitted up until, but not including, the time that Mr Willcockson is seen to be standing on the grass verge. The way in which he is arrested is no more and no less than what in my experience could be described as usual police practice. It says nothing at all about Mr Willcockson’s guilt or innocence of the charge that he faces. It will hardly be a matter of surprise to the jury that he will at some point have been arrested and taken into custody. That fact will in the ordinary course ultimately assume an insignificant role in the scheme of this trial. It is not unfairly prejudicial to Mr Willcockson. It is relevant in as much as it frames the immediately following conversation upon which the Crown wishes to rely for its stated purpose.

In contrast, there is nothing I can discern of any relevance to the Crown case that can possibly flow from passive vision of Mr Willcockson’s moderately corpulent naked abdominal profile as he speaks to police while handcuffed in the street. He says what he says and the conversation is admitted by him. It is important at all times where possible to maintain the dignity of any person charged with a criminal offence if that maintenance does not interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in the sense that it unnecessarily impedes the presentation of the Crown case. On one view, the image of Mr Willcockson in his semi-naked state may operate as an unnecessary distraction from the real reason why the tender is pressed.

I consider that the entire audio of the body worn material is admissible but that the video should be limited to his arrest inside the house and should not include vision of any part of Mr Willcockson’s conversation with the officers recorded outside the premises.