Kingston & Ors v R

Fresh evidence concerning the credibility of a Crown witness will not render convictions unsafe where it adds nothing of significance to the substantial discredit already before the jury. The appellate court should assess the practical effect that the new material would probably have had at trial, alongside the other evidence capable of supporting the verdicts.

A subsequent decision by the Crown not to call the witness in future proceedings does not, without more, concede that the witness's earlier evidence was false or that earlier convictions are unsafe.

Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, three former police officers appealed their 2000 convictions arising from the theft of amphetamine during a police search. The prosecution case depended principally on Neil Putnam, a former officer who had admitted corruption and repeated perjury.

The fresh material concerned Putnam's later allegations that he had disclosed police corruption connected with the Stephen Lawrence investigation and that this information had been suppressed. The Commission considered that those allegations might materially undermine his credibility and reliability. The central issue was whether the new material, including the Crown's later unwillingness to rely on Putnam in future proceedings, rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court held that the new material did not cast doubt on the safety of any conviction.
2. The Crown's later statement that Putnam should not be regarded as a witness of truth in future proceedings was not a concession that his evidence at the 2000 trial was false. It reflected a pragmatic decision not to call a witness then in dispute with the police, rather than an acceptance that the appellants were not guilty.
3. The court could not resolve whether Putnam had told police in 1998 of a corrupt relationship involving Davidson and Clifford Norris. The material was confused and unclear. Those whom Putnam said he had told denied it, and his later account lacked clarity and precision.
4. The decisive question was the practical impact at trial. Putnam had already been presented to the jury as corrupt, dishonest, devious and a skilled liar, who had admitted six acts of perjury. His later Panorama allegation would have been treated as a further lie and would not have added discredit of the significance needed to undermine the verdicts.
5. Further, the evidence available to the Crown, including the surveillance log, the seizure record and the intelligence that prompted the operation, tended to support Putnam's and Jones's evidence about the drugs. Cross-examination about the later allegation would have been collateral and would not have affected the safety of the convictions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, dismissed the appeals against conviction: [2014] EWCA Crim 1420.
• Central Criminal Court — On 4 August 2000, convicted two appellants of conspiracy to supply amphetamine and the third of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.