Richards & Anor, R v

Fresh evidence from a convicted co-offender should not be admitted under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 when it is incapable of belief and its admission is not in the interests of justice. Hearing such evidence de bene esse is an exceptional course.

A conviction following a properly directed jury trial cannot be quashed on a subjective "lurking doubt". There must be reasoned analysis of the evidence or trial process leading to the conclusion that the conviction is unsafe. A minimum term may properly reflect the full criminality of a planned and brutal contract killing, including a deterrent element.

Richards and Hope were convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Swansea of the murder of Aamir Ahmad and the attempted murders of his parents. Each received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 40 years, with concurrent 15-year sentences for the attempted murders.

Richards renewed his application for permission to appeal against conviction after Hope changed his account and asserted that Richards was innocent. Hope had previously abandoned his own conviction appeal, then gave evidence that an unidentified third man had committed the offences with him. Both appellants appealed their minimum terms.

The central issues were whether Hope's evidence should be admitted as fresh evidence, whether Richards's conviction was unsafe, and whether the 40-year minimum terms were manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal conviction was refused, and the sentence appeals were dismissed.

2. The court had exceptionally heard Hope's proposed fresh evidence de bene esse, following the course taken in R v Ditch (1969) 53 Cr App R 627. It declined to admit that evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Hope's account was incapable of belief. It conflicted in material respects with objective CCTV, cell-site and other evidence, and he could not coherently explain those conflicts or his earlier implication of Richards.

3. Applying the approach in R v Pope [2013] 1 Cr App Report 14, the court emphasised the constitutional primacy of the jury's verdict. A conviction cannot be set aside on a subjective judicial doubt. The court must identify reasoned analysis of the evidence or trial process which leads inexorably to the conclusion that the conviction is unsafe. Having reviewed the evidence, the court was sure that Richards's conviction was safe.

4. The 40-year minimum terms were just. The 30-year starting point was accepted. There were no mitigating factors, while the judge had correctly identified substantial aggravation: a planned contract killing, the murder of a child in his home before his parents, the brutal attack, attempts to murder both parents, and the offenders' records of serious violence. The terms properly reflected the entire criminality and the necessary deterrent element for contract killings.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2014] EWCA Crim 1196, Richards's renewed application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused. Both appeals against sentence were dismissed.
• Crown Court at Swansea: On 1 February 2013, a jury convicted Richards and Hope of murder and two attempted murders. On 8 February 2013, Royce J imposed life sentences with 40-year minimum terms and concurrent 15-year sentences for each attempted murder.