Hodgson, R. v

A conviction is unsafe where post-trial DNA evidence establishes that the accused could not have been the person who raped the victim, and the prosecution case at trial depended on the proposition that the rapist was also the killer. Such evidence may demolish the prosecution case notwithstanding confessional detail and other evidence which had previously appeared to support the conviction.

The appellant was convicted of murder at Winchester Crown Court in 1982. The prosecution relied substantially on detailed confessions, together with evidence said to support their reliability. Its case was that the person who raped the deceased was also responsible for her murder.

An earlier application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused in 1983. In 2008 and 2009, retained exhibits were subjected to DNA analysis. The results established that semen recovered from vaginal and anal swabs could not have originated from the appellant. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the conviction to the Court of Appeal on 4 March 2009.

The central issue was whether the new DNA evidence rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the murder conviction as unsafe. The appellant was discharged and there would be no new trial.

2. The DNA analysis of remaining material on the vaginal and anal swabs established that the semen did not originate from the appellant. The court treated that conclusion as conclusive of the critical evidential issue. It was not a case in which the conviction was set aside because of police misconduct, unreliable trial witnesses, or any identified impropriety at trial.

3. The prosecution had advanced a single case: the man who raped the deceased also killed her. The new evidence established that the appellant could not have been the rapist. It therefore destroyed the prosecution case, notwithstanding the detailed confessions, evidence consistent with his blood group, and evidence which had previously suggested that he possessed knowledge of undisclosed features of the crime.

4. The court observed that, had the DNA evidence been available at trial, it would have led to a materially different investigation and trial. The conviction could therefore no longer stand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction as unsafe: [2009] EWCA Crim 490.
• Court of Criminal Appeal — refused an application for leave to appeal against conviction in May 1983.
• Winchester Crown Court — convicted the appellant of murder on 5 February 1982 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.