Burt, R v

Where a conviction depends upon a prosecution witness whom the Crown accepts can no longer properly be treated as a witness of truth, the conviction may be unsafe. This is particularly so where the witness's evidence was essential to the allegations and the Crown would offer no evidence on a retrial of co-accused persons arising from the same events. The proper course is to quash the conviction.

The appellant was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of kidnapping and possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. He received consecutive sentences totalling eight years’ imprisonment.

The prosecution case depended on Michael Hutchinson. Subsequent police investigation established that Hutchinson had made false allegations of blackmail against another man. The Crown therefore declined to rely on him at the retrial of two co-accused and offered no evidence against them.

After an earlier jurisdictional obstacle to reopening the appellant’s case, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. The central question was whether the appellant’s conviction could safely stand when the Crown no longer regarded Hutchinson as a witness of truth.

1. The conviction was quashed. The Court accepted the Crown’s concession that this was the appropriate response to the circumstances of the case.
2. The allegations of kidnapping and possession of a firearm depended on Hutchinson’s evidence. Following investigation, his allegations of blackmail against a third man were shown to be false. The Crown concluded that it could not safely rely on Hutchinson’s credibility in proceedings against that man.
3. The Crown consequently decided that it would be wrong to rely on Hutchinson as a witness of truth at the retrial of the appellant’s two co-accused, and offered no evidence against them. The Court held that, as a matter of logic, the appellant’s conviction could be no safer than a conviction that might have followed that retrial.
4. Having examined the papers, the Court regarded the Crown’s position as sensible in light of the harsh realities of the case. The conviction could not stand and was therefore quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Court quashed the appellant’s conviction in [2005] EWCA Crim 315.
• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Referred the appellant’s case back to the Court of Appeal after an earlier jurisdictional obstacle to reopening it.
• Crown Court at Maidstone: On 11 July 2002, the appellant was convicted of kidnapping and possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, and sentenced to a total of eight years’ imprisonment.