Khan & Anor, R v

A conviction is unsafe where subsequent evidence materially supports a defence allegation that the police officer who led the investigation acted dishonestly and abused his position to assist a closely associated informant. The court must assess the evidence in its full context. Independent evidence against the defendants does not cure the resulting concern where the officer’s role was pivotal, the later misconduct is closely connected in time and circumstances, and it cannot confidently be excluded that the investigation or public-interest-immunity process was compromised.

The appellants were convicted at the Crown Court at St Albans of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. Khan was also convicted of offences concerning dishonest use of telecommunications services and possession of devices intended to avoid payment.

The prosecution case depended materially on DS Spackman, the officer in charge. At trial, the defence alleged that he had acted corruptly with Joanne Fletcher, an informant and Khan’s former partner, to fabricate or suppress evidence. Spackman denied the allegations.

Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, evidence emerged that Spackman and Fletcher had later committed a serious police-related fraud together, and that property seized in the appellants’ investigation had been found in their possession or that of an associate. The central issue was whether, notwithstanding other incriminating evidence, the convictions remained safe.

1. The appeals were allowed and all convictions were quashed. The court held that the convictions were unsafe.

2. DS Spackman’s role was pivotal. He led the investigation, prepared the prosecution case, participated in a public-interest-immunity application, and gave evidence implicating the appellants. His integrity was therefore fundamental to the safety of the convictions.

3. The later evidence did more than show unrelated misconduct by a prosecution witness. It supported the defence case advanced at trial: that Spackman was prepared to misuse his position to assist Fletcher, with whom he had a close relationship. His subsequent fraud with Fletcher involved sophisticated deception within the police environment and occurred after a comparatively short interval.

4. The court treated the later criminality as capable of forming part of a continuing course of conduct directed at impressing Fletcher and sustaining their relationship. The discovery of watches seized during the appellants’ investigation in Spackman’s possession, or that of an associate, supplied a direct connection with this case.

5. Although there was evidence against the appellants apart from Spackman, the court could not confidently exclude dishonest conduct by him in every aspect of the investigation or conclude that the trial judge had not been misled in considering public-interest-immunity material. The convictions therefore could not stand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions: [2005] EWCA Crim 3100.
• Crown Court at St Albans: on 4 June 1999, the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to obtain property by deception; Khan was also convicted of telecommunications-related dishonesty offences.