Bacchus, R v

A conviction is unsafe where the prosecution’s case depended on expert evidence which can no longer safely be relied upon. Where, without that evidence, there was no case fit to be left to the jury, the conviction must be quashed. The Crown’s realistic concession that the expert’s methods were insufficiently reliable supported that conclusion.

The appellant had been convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of robbery and sentenced to four years’ detention in a young offender institution, consecutive to sentences for other offences.

The prosecution relied on expert comparison evidence from Mr Harrow to identify the appellant from CCTV footage. The Crown accepted that there would have been no case to leave to the jury without that evidence. Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appellant appealed against conviction. The central issue was whether the conviction remained safe once the reliability of the expert evidence could no longer be supported.

1. Appeal allowed. The conviction for robbery was unsafe and could not stand.

2. The prosecution case identifying the appellant as one of the robbers depended upon Mr Harrow’s expert comparison evidence. That evidence compared footage of men arriving near the complainant’s flat with footage from other robberies and with clothing associated with the appellant.

3. The Crown accepted that, without Mr Harrow’s evidence, there was no sufficient case to leave to the jury. It had reviewed a number of cases involving him and concluded that it could no longer be confident that his methods produced reliable evidence. The Crown had consequently ceased instructing him and did not contend that a jury could safely rely on his evidence.

4. The court agreed that a conviction is unsafe unless the jury could safely act on the expert evidence upon which the prosecution case depended. Since the reliability of that evidence could no longer be supported, the resulting conviction had to be regarded as unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2004] EWCA Crim 1756, following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the court allowed the appeal against the appellant’s Nottingham Crown Court robbery conviction as unsafe.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 27 September 2000, the appellant was convicted of robbery by a majority of 10 to 2 and sentenced to four years’ detention in a young offender institution, consecutive to other sentences.