Roden & Anor, R v

On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the Court of Appeal must decide whether the convictions are safe. In reviewing an old trial, it must assess asserted defects in their trial context and against the evidence as a whole. Material which might have had forensic value, or hindsight criticism of counsel’s conduct, does not suffice. The court must determine whether it could realistically undermine the verdict.

Where the critical evidence remains unshaken and the new matters do not affect the safety of the verdict, the appeal must be dismissed.

The appellants were convicted at Newport Crown Court of the murders of Gerald Stevens and Christine Rees and were each sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution relied materially on evidence that a converted air rifle had reached Attwooll and on Perkins’s evidence implicating Roden.

After earlier applications for leave to appeal had failed, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the convictions under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. The reference concerned material which might support Attwooll’s account of visiting the murder scene in his own car, and evidence of a suspicious blue car near the time of the murders. The appellants also sought leave to advance further grounds attacking aspects of the investigation and evidence.

The central issue was whether those matters rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeals dismissed. The court held that the convictions remained safe.

2. The appellate task was not to re-try every criticism of an old investigation or trial. The court had to evaluate the significance of the matters relied on in their original trial context, then stand back and decide whether the verdicts were safe.

3. The suggested contamination explanation for blood found in Attwooll’s car did not withstand scrutiny. The forensic and scene-of-crime evidence showed no real, rather than theoretical, possibility that he had acquired blood at the scene in the way alleged. The staining, particularly on the interior roof, could not be explained by that account. Accordingly, any failure to obtain clearer evidence that he had been seen driving from Birds Industrial Estate could not have been significant to the verdict.

4. Evidence of a blue Sierra near the time of the murders might have caused the jury to pause, but it would not ultimately have affected its verdict when assessed against the substantial evidence linking both appellants to the killings.

5. The remaining complaints either sought to re-run matters fully explored at trial or did not independently provide a substantial basis for allowing an appeal. Hindsight criticism of counsel’s decisions was especially unsafe in a complex, historic case, because the trial dynamics and tactical risks could not reliably be reconstructed from the transcript alone.

6. Price’s evidence placed the firearm in Attwooll’s hands, and Perkins’s evidence, if accepted, established Roden’s guilt. No credible reason had been shown for either witness to lie, and no new evidence undermined their accounts. Since the jury had accepted that critical evidence, the fresh material did not undermine the safety of either verdict.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, dismissed both appeals against conviction: [2008] EWCA Crim 879.

• Newport Crown Court: On 10 June 1995, before Jowitt J, convicted both appellants of two counts of murder and sentenced each to life imprisonment.

• Earlier leave applications: Waller J refused both applications on 29 February 1996. The Full Court refused Roden’s renewed application on 18 July 1996; Attwooll did not renew his application.