Wilson, R v

A conviction is unsafe where material obtained after trial undermines the integrity of the investigation and calls into question important prosecution evidence. The appellate court may allow the appeal where the prosecution no longer contends that the conviction is safe, particularly where the same material led it to offer no evidence against a co-defendant whose alleged conspiracy was required to involve a dishonest agreement between both defendants.

Where public interest immunity restricts what can be disclosed, the court should nevertheless give reasons as fully as the public interest permits.

R v Wilson concerned the appellant's conviction at Reading Crown Court for conspiracy to defraud his employer through false invoices. The prosecution case required proof of a dishonest agreement between Wilson and his co-defendant, Cutler.

After Wilson's conviction, but before his sentence, fresh material came to the prosecution's attention. It was disclosable for Cutler's retrial, but the prosecution obtained a public interest immunity order and elected to offer no evidence against Cutler. It then accepted that Wilson's conviction was no longer safe and did not oppose his late appeal.

The central issue was whether the fresh material rendered Wilson's conviction unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court extended time, granted leave, and quashed Wilson's conviction because it was unsafe.
2. The fresh material was sufficiently significant to require disclosure for Cutler's retrial. Although it could not be publicly disclosed because of public interest immunity, the court had considered it and received an in camera explanation of the basis for the order.
3. Further enquiries by Costain had caused it to doubt the integrity of the internal investigation that led to the prosecution. That information also called into question the evidence of Jenkins, an important prosecution witness who had said that Wilson's allegations had been fully investigated and lacked support.
4. The prosecution accepted that, had the material been available before Wilson's trial, it would have offered no evidence against him. The court agreed that the conviction was unsafe. The prosecution had also maintained at trial that a conspiracy required a dishonest meeting of minds between both defendants. After it offered no evidence against Cutler, it would in any event have been unfair for Wilson to remain in a different position.
5. Following R v Guney, [2003] EWCA Crim 1502, the court gave reasons as fully as possible without compromising the public interest. Wilson had not been sentenced and would not be sentenced. The court made no order concerning the outstanding civil judgment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Time was extended, leave to appeal was granted, and the conviction was quashed as unsafe.
• Crown Court at Reading: Wilson was convicted by a majority verdict on 17 July 2009 of conspiracy to defraud. He had not been sentenced when the appeal was allowed.