Talal, R v

A conviction is unsafe where fresh expert evidence materially undermines prosecution expert evidence that was crucial to the jury’s verdict. Where the fresh evidence is admitted and leaves the central prosecution opinion open to reasonable doubt, the appeal should be allowed and the conviction set aside.

The appellant had been convicted at St Albans Crown Court in 1985 of making explosives contrary to section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883, and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. His earlier attempts to appeal had failed after his application for leave was abandoned and the court later refused to treat that abandonment as a nullity.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The prosecution case had depended substantially on Mr Fereday’s expert evidence that devices recovered from the appellant were explosive timers. Fresh expert evidence, comparable to evidence considered in R v Berry, challenged that assessment. The central issue was whether that evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court admitted the fresh expert evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and set aside the conviction.

2. The prosecution case had depended critically on Mr Fereday’s expert evidence about the recovered devices. In R v Berry, expert evidence had undermined the same expert’s assessment of similar devices, leading the Court of Appeal to conclude that his opinions were open to doubt and to quash the conviction.

3. The appellant now had available comparable expert evidence which he had been unable effectively to obtain at trial. The Crown accepted that this material might well have left Mr Fereday’s evidence open to reasonable doubt and did not seek to resist the contention that the conviction was unsafe.

4. The court found it unnecessary to determine the appellant’s other grounds. The available expert evidence was sufficient to require the appeal to be allowed. It also ordered costs from central funds for the appellant’s incidental costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the conviction under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
• Court of Appeal: In 1989, the full court refused the appellant’s application to treat as a nullity the abandonment of his earlier application for leave to appeal.
• Court of Appeal: In 1986, Lord Lane CJ permitted abandonment of the application for leave to appeal against conviction and refused the other applications.
• Crown Court at St Albans: In 1985, the appellant was convicted of making explosives and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.