Ghuman & Ors, R v

Where material information about participating informants, their handling and the reliability of prosecution evidence has not been disclosed, the resulting unfairness may taint the prosecution beyond redemption. Full and reliable disclosure is essential, particularly in public interest immunity and abuse-of-process proceedings, because judges and counsel must be able to act on the information provided.

A defendant who pleaded guilty without the benefit of proper disclosure should not be disadvantaged compared with a co-accused whose case would have been abandoned following full disclosure. In an appropriate case, the guilty plea and all related convictions must be quashed.

The appellants were involved in a conspiracy to cheat the public revenue through the diversion of alcohol from a bonded warehouse without payment of excise duty. Three were convicted after trial at Southwark Crown Court and one, Bamidele, had pleaded guilty before the jury was sworn.

Ghuman's case was referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The other appellants sought substantial extensions of time to challenge their convictions. After the trial, it emerged that two prosecution witnesses from the warehouse had been participating informants, that relevant information had not been disclosed, that one witness had given false or misleading evidence, and that there were serious deficiencies in informant records and exhibit continuity.

The central issue was whether those failures left the convictions, including the guilty plea, capable of standing.

1. The court granted the outstanding applications for leave and allowed all four appeals against conviction. Each conviction, including Bamidele's conviction on his guilty plea, was quashed.

2. The prosecution accepted, and the court accepted, that material information had not been disclosed to the trial judge. Customs and Excise had reason to believe that Alfred Allington was involved in excise fraud and receiving illicit payments. Both Allington brothers were participating informants, but the judge was not told that Edward had that status and was not shown records demonstrating Alfred's role.

3. Alfred Allington should not have been called as a prosecution witness. His evidence was misleading or dishonest. The handler, Bernie Small, had failed to keep required records of informant contacts and had taken relevant accompanying administrative documents without records or receipts. That made proper continuity of important exhibits impossible.

4. These defects deprived the defendants of a potential abuse-of-process application and caused the trial judge to make disclosure decisions on incomplete information. The court treated the circumstances as closely parallel to those considered in R v Villiers & Ors [2001] EWCA Crim 2505 and Early & Ors [2003] 1 Cr App R 288. Full disclosure is indispensable because judicial and professional decisions depend on reliable prosecution information, especially in public interest immunity proceedings.

5. Bamidele's guilty plea did not alter the result. He had pleaded without proper disclosure and could not properly be in a worse position than defendants who would have obtained further disclosure and an abandonment of the prosecution. The convictions were therefore tainted beyond redemption.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In this judgment, the court allowed the appeals against conviction and quashed all four convictions: [2004] EWCA Crim 742.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In 2000, differently constituted Full Courts refused Ghuman's applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, refused Parmenter's application for leave to appeal against sentence, and dismissed Bamidele's appeal against sentence.

• Southwark Crown Court: Ghuman, Parmenter and Prior were convicted on 30 March 1999 of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. Bamidele pleaded guilty to the same count before the jury was sworn.