Hansford v R.

Where relevant information was not reflected accurately in a Crown admission, the appellate court must determine for itself whether the conviction remains safe in light of the corrected admission and the evidence as a whole. A more favourable admission does not render a conviction unsafe if it establishes only that the defence account was plausible, while the jury could properly reject that account on strong independent evidence of guilt.

Relevant source material may remain undisclosed for compelling public-interest reasons where an admission adequately protects the defendant's interests and the source material would provide no further assistance.

The appellant was convicted at Southampton Crown Court of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue arising from an excise-duty diversion fraud conducted through a bonded warehouse which he operated. His defence was that he discovered the fraud late, received threats to his family, and thereafter only appeared to co-operate through fear.

At trial, the judge refused disclosure of confidential material relating to associates of a co-conspirator, but directed a Crown admission summarising it. Further material later showed that the admission should have stated that one potentially violent associate was believed to have been involved in the spirits business forming the subject of the indictment.

Leave to appeal was granted because the corrected admission was arguably more helpful to the defence. The central issue was whether the conviction was safe notwithstanding the inaccurate admission.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court was satisfied that the conviction was safe notwithstanding the information which ought to have been included in the Crown's admission.

2. The trial judge had correctly refused disclosure of the source material on important public-interest grounds. On the information then available, the original admission adequately protected the appellant's interests. The further source material also remained undisclosable for compelling public-interest reasons. It would not have assisted the appellant more than the amended admission and might have conveyed a less favourable impression.

3. The amended admission made the appellant's allegation of threats plausible. It did not make the allegation likely. Whether the jury would accept it depended on whether they could accept that he had not participated in the conspiracy from its outset.

4. There was abundant circumstantial evidence that the appellant was involved from the beginning. It included his control of the warehouse, his completion of required documents, false and backdated documentation created shortly before a Customs visit, the unexplained presence of documents at his office, and evidence concerning the false warehouse stamp. Much of that evidence pre-dated the alleged discovery of the stamps and threats.

5. The jury had plainly rejected the claim that the appellant was merely play-acting in a recorded conversation. Even if the amended admission had been before the jury, it was highly likely that it would have reached the same conclusion. Applying the safety test, each member of the court was independently satisfied that the conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2006] EWCA Crim 1225, dismissed the appeal against conviction after considering the corrected Crown admission and the undisclosed material.
• Southampton Crown Court: On 13 March 2003, convicted the appellant of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue. On 3 April 2003, sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.