The appeal was made by the widow of the appellant, on the basis that his conviction had been obtained on the basis of non-disclosure of relevant evidence by the police. The test was ‘would the only reasonable and proper verdict been one of guilty’ even if the disclosure had been made? It was. Evidence of subsequent disciplinary proceedings against some of the officers would not have made any effective difference. ‘We turn to the disciplinary finding. The officer was found guilty in December 1997 on a charge relating to a search carried out by him in 1997, that is years after the events with which this case is concerned. The evidence against him was that he had, in effect, misappropriated two or three ‘skunk cannabis heads’ said by him to be required for training purposes. He was required to resign. [Prosecuting counsel] makes the point that all times DC Robotham was accompanied by others including, when he returned, a civilian photographer and that tamper proof exhibit bags were used by the police. Having had the advantage of a thorough analysis of the case we take the view that this finding does not undermine the safety of the conviction.’
Judges:
Judge LJ
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Crim 1687
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Francom; Regina v Latif (Clare); Regina v Latif (Melna); Regina v Bevis; Regina v Harker CACD 24-Oct-2000
The judge failed to give a direction in accordance with recommendations from the Judicial Studies Board and counsel in the case as to the need for the jury not to draw inferences from the defendants’ failure to mention certain facts on interview. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Deans, Regina v CACD 30-Jul-2004
In 1989 the defendant was convicted of assorted serious drugs crimes. His case came before the court once more but on the basis that the evidence against him had been fabricated by police officers who had subsequently been discredited.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.158779