Dizaei v Regina: CACD 16 May 2011

The defendant had been convicted of misconduct in a public office and doing acts with intent to pervert the course of justice. He now appealed saying that he could demonstrate that the principal witness was dishonest. The prosecution replied that this information had been discoverable to the defence at trial.
Held: The appeal was allowed, though a retrial was ordered. Though some of the material either was or ought to have been available to the defence, some was not, and ‘we are sure that the only proper conclusion is that we cannot be satisfied that the information now available about the benefit claims, stemming from the vital fact that Sabree was dead, was known to the defendant, nor that he made a deliberate decision not to investigate it. We do not believe that it is likely that he alone elected to keep such information from his lawyers, or set unaided about the calculation of any likely riposte from the Crown.’

Hughes VP LJ, Treacy, Cranston JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 1174
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Pendleton HL 13-Dec-2001
The defendant had appealed his conviction for murder to the Court of Appeal. The 1968 Act required the court to consider whether the conviction was unsafe. New evidence was before the Court of Appeal, but they had rejected the appeal.
Held: . .
CitedBurridge v Regina CACD 2-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his infant son. There had been considerable expert medical evidence called, but only by the prosecution.
Held: The court considered the basis upon which new evidence could be . .
CitedKelvin Dial (otherwise called Peter), Andrew Dottin (otherwise called Maxwell) v The State PC 14-Feb-2005
(Trinidad and Tobago) Two defendants appealed against their convictions for murder. The principal witness who had identified them, had retracted his evidence, but the retraction had not been believed. He was then shown to have lied.
Held: The . .
CitedStafford v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1974
The House rejected the submission of counsel that the Court of Appeal had asked the wrong question by taking as the test the effect of the fresh evidence on their mind and not the effect that the evidence would have had on the mind of the jury. It . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.439738