Blackburn, R. v

When considering the safety of an historic conviction, the court applies the substantive criminal law in force at trial but assesses investigative and trial fairness by present-day standards. A breach of past or current safeguards does not itself make a conviction unsafe. However, admissions obtained from a young detainee after prolonged questioning, without legal advice or effective adult support, and amid circumstances likely to create pressure, may be unreliable and should be excluded.

Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, evidence suggesting that a confession was true cannot cure unreliability in the way it was obtained. Where the admissions were central to the prosecution and the remaining evidence is limited and circumstantial, the convictions are unsafe.

In 1978, Paul Blackburn, then aged 15, was convicted at Chester Crown Court of attempted murder and attempted buggery arising from a grave assault on a nine-year-old boy. The Crown case depended principally on oral admissions and a written confession made during a lengthy police interview at the approved school where he was detained.

His renewed application for leave to appeal was dismissed in 1981. Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appeal was treated as an appeal under section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Fresh evidence included linguistic evidence of significant police involvement in the wording of the written confession and expert evidence concerning false confessions.

The central issue was whether the admissions should have been admitted and, if not, whether the convictions remained safe.

1. Appeal allowed. The convictions were unsafe and were quashed.

2. The court applied present-day standards of fairness when assessing the safety of this historic conviction. The substantive criminal law remained that applicable in 1978, but the fairness of the investigation, trial and reliability of the evidence had to be judged by current standards. A breach of an applicable rule was relevant but did not automatically make a conviction unsafe.

3. It was proper to receive expert evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The risk that a young and vulnerable person might make a coerced compliant confession after prolonged questioning was outside ordinary jury experience. Such a risk did not depend on an abnormal personality disorder.

4. The written confession had been obtained in breach of Rule IV(b) of the Judges Rules. Linguistic evidence showed significant police involvement although the officers had testified that the appellant wrote it entirely without assistance. That seriously undermined their credibility and also affected the reliability of their account of the preceding oral admissions.

5. The appellant, already detained and the principal suspect, should have been informed of his right to legal advice. The police could not avoid that safeguard by interviewing him at school. The absence of a parent or guardian, the ineffective role of the adult present, more than three hours of questioning without a recorded break, and references to a possible further charge cumulatively made all the admissions unreliable.

6. Section 76(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 concerns the reliability of the manner in which a confession was obtained, not whether it was true. Extrinsic evidence tending to show truth could not cure the identified unreliability. Without the admissions, the remaining opportunity, description and circumstantial evidence was limited and could not support safe convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions: [2005] EWCA Crim 1349.

• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Referred the case on 9 August 2004 under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.

• Court of Appeal: Dismissed the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence on 17 March 1981.

• Chester Crown Court: Convicted the appellant on 18 December 1978 of attempted murder and attempted buggery.