Christian, R v

A conviction must be quashed where reliable subsequent information about corruption by police officers materially involved in the search, arrest and alleged recovery of the weapon means that the conviction cannot be regarded as safe. The prosecution’s concession is not determinative, but the appellate court must independently decide safety.

The appellant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 15 September 1992 of possessing a shotgun without a firearm certificate and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. His earlier appeal was dismissed.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission subsequently referred the case under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Its investigations disclosed that officers involved in the arrest and search had been found guilty of corruption involving the use of imitation weapons. The central issue was whether the conviction remained safe.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction was quashed because it could not be regarded as safe.
2. The subsequent information about corruption by police officers involved in both the appellant’s arrest and the alleged discovery of the shotgun created a material basis for doubting the integrity of the evidence supporting the conviction.
3. The Crown did not seek to uphold the conviction. Lord Justice Mantell stated that safety remained a matter for the court’s independent decision, but agreed with the Crown’s position on the facts.
4. A defendant’s costs order was made in respect of the earlier appeal, with costs to be taxed and paid from central funds once taxed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2003] EWCA Crim 686, allowed the appeal following a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference and quashed the conviction.
• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Referred the case under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 after its investigations raised concerns about police corruption.
• Earlier appeal: Dismissed; the court and citation are not stated in the judgment.
• Central Criminal Court: On 15 September 1992, convicted the appellant of possessing a shotgun without a firearm certificate and imposed three years’ imprisonment.