Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc: CACD 26 Jul 2002

The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon evidence given by unregistered informants, but whose status and involvement had been hidden from the judge.
Held: The need to protect the system of justice meant that courts should not be slow to overturn convictions where it was shown that prosecution behaviour would amount to an abuse of process. In this case also freely entered into guilty pleas were set aside because they had been entered on the basis that the prosecution had made full disclosure where in fact they had not. The Court referred to the possibility of the prosecution case being regarded as ‘tainted beyond redemption, however strong the evidence against the defendant may otherwise be’). Retrials were not possible because sentences had been served and such trials would have insurmountable difficulties.


Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Colman and Mr Justice Roderick Evans


Times 02-Aug-2002, Gazette 10-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Crim 1904, [2003] 1 Crim App Rep 288




FollowedRegina v Mullen CACD 4-Feb-1999
British authorities, in disregard of available extradition procedures, initiated and procured the unlawful deportation of the appellant from Zimbabwe to England. The appellant was charged and tried for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
CitedRegina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
CitedMaxwell, Regina v SC 20-Jul-2011
The defendant had had his conviction for murder set aside after a finding of gross prosecutorial misconduct by the police. The Court was now asked as to the propriety of the order for a retrial. The police involved in the case had misled the CPS, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174456