The defendants sought leave to appeal against their convictions for conspiracy to murder after involvement in a plot to explode several bombs on the London Transport system. They said that it had not been their intention to explode the devices.
Held: Leave was refused. The defences were ludicrous, though in fact the devices were not viable. Evidence which was obtained during safety interviews (initial interviews by the police intended to ensure the safety of the public) was admissible provided it to not make a fair trial impossible. In this case those interviews had been undertaken under caution. It was purely a matter for the police whether they did this or chose to offer undertakings not to use any information for prosecution purposes. The judge had taken great care in analysing the submissions and agreed directions to the jury with counsel.
Sir Igor Judge P, Forbes J, Mackay J
 EWCA Crim 880, Times 08-May-2008,  2 Cr App R 23,  2 Cr App Rep 23,  Crim LR 110,  1 WLR 578,  4 All ER 208
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 74 78, Terrorism Act 2000 Sch 8
England and Wales
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267058