Matthew Tallentire & Anor v R: witness testimony and jury directions appeal analysis

On 14 July 2025, the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) delivered its judgement in Matthew Tallentire & Anor v R [2025] EWCA Crim 885, dismissing appeals against convictions for serious sexual offences. The case provides significant guidance on prosecutorial commentary regarding absent witnesses and judicial directions on defendant lies.

Case background

Matthew Tallentire was convicted on 26 January 2024 of multiple charges including rape and attempted oral rape of a 13-year-old girl (referred to as A) during a holiday in Blackpool. Co-defendants Mark Smethurst and Heather Reynolds were convicted of cruelty towards A. The offences occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic amid circumstances involving heavy drinking and drug use.

Tallentire received a nine-year prison sentence on 26 July 2024, whilst Smethurst and Reynolds received lesser sentences. The appeal process highlighted critical issues surrounding witness testimony and jury guidance in complex criminal proceedings.

Primary grounds of appeal

The appeal centred on two fundamental issues that challenged the safety of the convictions and the conduct of the trial proceedings.

Commentary on absent witness

The first ground concerned whether the prosecution and judge were entitled to comment on the defence's failure to call Abi Hutchinson as a witness. Hutchinson, Tallentire's partner, was present during critical moments relevant to the allegations. The defence argued that adverse inferences should not be drawn from their decision not to call her, maintaining that no obligation existed to present every potential witness.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the judge's commentary was appropriate given Hutchinson's potential evidence bore significant relevance to the case. The judges determined that judicial discretion permitted comment on her absence, particularly since the jury had expressed interest in her testimony. This ruling reinforces the principle that whilst the defence bears no obligation to call witnesses, the court may legitimately comment on strategically significant absences where such commentary assists jury understanding.

Jury directions on defendant lies

The second ground addressed the judge's directions regarding lies allegedly told by both defendants about pivotal events. The prosecution contended that both Tallentire and Smethurst had provided false accounts of circumstances surrounding A's allegations.

The judge instructed the jury that even if they concluded certain defendants had lied, this did not automatically establish guilt for the charges. This direction proved crucial given the overlapping nature of testimonies among the defendants and the complexity of assessing credibility across multiple accused persons.

The Court of Appeal upheld these directions as fair and legally sound, emphasising that the judge adequately conveyed the necessity for cautious evaluation of evidence and witness accounts. The judgement reinforces established principles that lies, whilst potentially relevant to credibility, require careful judicial guidance to prevent inappropriate logical leaps to guilt.

Legal implications

The Court's dismissal of both appeals confirms that no substantial procedural errors occurred that would render the convictions unsafe. The judgement provides valuable precedent on two significant areas of criminal law practice.

Regarding absent witnesses, the decision clarifies that whilst the defence retains absolute discretion over witness selection, courts may legitimately comment on strategic omissions where such commentary serves the interests of justice and jury comprehension. This balances defence autonomy with judicial responsibility to ensure fair trial proceedings.

The ruling on jury directions concerning lies reinforces the established Lucas direction principles, emphasising that judicial guidance must clearly distinguish between lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt and lies as automatic proof of guilt. The Court's approval of the trial judge's directions provides a template for managing similar situations in complex multi-defendant cases.

This case demonstrates the Court of Appeal's continued emphasis on procedural fairness whilst maintaining appropriate boundaries around defence strategy and judicial commentary. The judgement serves as a reminder that successful appeals require demonstration of substantial procedural errors rather than disagreement with tactical decisions or routine judicial directions.