Amin, R. v

Hearsay comprising a co-participant’s confession which also implicates the defendant may be admitted under section 114(1)(d) where, after considering the statutory factors, its admission is in the interests of justice. The court must assess its evidential value, the surrounding evidence, the circumstances in which it was made, reliability, the opportunity to challenge it and prejudice to the defendant.

Covert statements made without awareness of recording, which contain self-incriminating admissions and are supported by other evidence, may be sufficiently reliable despite the makers’ absence from trial. Appropriate cautionary directions remain important. Sentences for perverting the course of justice are fact-sensitive and are not fixed by the minimum-term category applicable to the underlying murder.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Southwark of perverting the course of justice and preventing a public burial. The offences arose from his alleged assistance in concealing and disposing of the body of a murder victim. He received eight years’ imprisonment for perverting the course of justice and a concurrent five-year sentence for preventing a public burial.

His conviction appeal challenged the admission of four covert prison-visit conversations. In those conversations, two participants in the murder made admissions about their own conduct while implicating the appellant, who was absent. The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence alleged that the eight-year term was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether admitting the hearsay conversations was in the interests of justice.

1. Conviction appeal dismissed. The trial judge correctly admitted the four covert conversations under section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The judge had carefully considered the section 114(2) factors, and the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.
2. The conversations had substantial probative value and assisted the proper understanding of the other evidence. They were corroborated in important respects by cell-site, vehicle-tracking and other evidence. They were not the sole or main evidence against the appellant.
3. The speakers did not know that they were being recorded. Their statements implicating the appellant were inextricably linked to admissions of their own participation in the murder and disposal of the body. The court held that there was no sustainable basis for suggesting that they had lied to protect an unidentified person or that they were mistaken as to who had driven to Birmingham.
4. The absence of cross-examination was a real disadvantage, but it did not make admission unfair. It was implausible that either speaker would co-operate with the prosecution, while the appellant could challenge the alleged assertion that he had driven to Birmingham through his own evidence and case. The jury also received full and appropriate directions requiring particular caution.
5. The court applied the approach in R v Y, [2008] EWCA Crim 10, which recognises that an untestable accusation accompanying another person’s confession may exceptionally be sufficiently reliable for admission in the interests of justice. On the facts, the convictions were safe.
6. Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence refused. There is no fixed relationship between the minimum-term regime for murder and the appropriate sentence for perverting the course of justice. R v Lang, [2001] EWCA Crim 2690, was fact-specific and concerned materially different circumstances. The delay did not mitigate sentence because evidence was unavailable at the earlier trial, the appellant had evaded the police, showed no remorse and had contributed to delay in locating the body.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2014] EWCA Crim 1924, dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence.
• Crown Court at Southwark: On 5 December 2013, convicted the appellant of perverting the course of justice and preventing a public burial. On 6 December 2013, imposed eight years’ imprisonment for the first offence and a concurrent five-year term for the second.