Reed, R. v

Article 6 requires an assessment of the fairness of the proceedings as a whole. It does not prescribe a distinct code governing every police approach to a potential prosecution witness. Evidence from accomplices or witnesses who may expect an advantage can be admitted where effective safeguards operate. These include recording and disclosure obligations, cross-examination, careful judicial directions, and the court’s powers to stay an unfair prosecution or exclude evidence under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The jury must be alerted to possible inducements and should approach such evidence with caution, looking for supporting material where appropriate.

Adrian Reed was convicted at Norwich Crown Court of six conspiracies to supply controlled drugs. He received a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.

His principal appeal ground was that the prosecution evidence came substantially from co-defendants, accomplices and vulnerable witnesses. He contended that inadequate recording of preliminary police dealings with those witnesses created undisclosed inducements and made the trial unfair under article 6 of the Convention.

Before trial, the judge rejected applications to stay the prosecution for abuse of process or to exclude the evidence under section 78. At trial, the witnesses and investigating officers were cross-examined about inducements, and the jury received repeated cautions about evidence from witnesses who might gain an advantage. The Court of Appeal also considered whether the sentence was excessive or disproportionate to that imposed on a younger co-defendant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that Reed had received a fair trial and that the convictions were safe. It also refused his renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence.

2. The question under article 6 was whether the proceedings, viewed as a whole, were unfair. The court was not concerned with devising a new code for police approaches to potential witnesses. English law already regulated the position through recording and disclosure duties, the common-law safeguards concerning accomplice evidence, the power to stay an abuse of process, and the power to exclude unfair evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

3. No breach of the relevant recording, retention or disclosure rules had been alleged. The available disclosure, detailed cross-examination of each witness and of the police, and the judge’s continuing control of the trial gave the jury a proper basis to assess whether evidence was affected by fear, inducement or hoped-for advantage.

4. The judge was entitled to admit the evidence and keep the issue under review. The jury were repeatedly directed to exercise caution, to consider the possibility of advantage, and to look for supporting material where appropriate. There was supporting evidence, including Reed’s lies, his fingerprint on an incriminating leaflet, and evidence concerning the police chase. The approach was consistent with the safeguard identified in Chan Wai-Keung v Reginam [1995] 2 Cr App R 194 (PC).

5. The total sentence of 11 years was not excessive. Reed was the ringleader, used violence and intimidation, and continued the conspiracy after release on bail. The judge was entitled to impose consecutive terms for the separate periods of conspiracy while applying totality. There was no improper disparity with Whitmore, who was 17 and had a materially lesser role.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2003] EWCA Crim 2667, dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence.
• Norwich Crown Court: On 25 May 2001, Reed was convicted of six conspiracies to supply controlled drugs. On 25 June 2001, HHJ Paul Downes imposed a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment.