Foran v R

Fresh evidence concerning police misconduct does not make an historic conviction unsafe merely because an officer belonged to a discredited squad. The appellate court must assess the particular officer, the available material for legitimate cross-examination, and the likely effect upon the jury.

Where convictions substantially depend on disputed confessions, effective fresh material impeaching the credibility of relevant officers may prevent the court from being sure that the verdicts are safe. This is especially so where there is no reliable independent evidence implicating the defendant. An identification direction otherwise safely left to the jury cannot sustain a conviction if its necessary supporting confession evidence is unsafe.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court in 1978 of four robberies, charged in counts 3 to 6. The prosecution case depended principally on admissions which police officers said that he had made in police custody and later at prison. There was limited identification evidence in relation to counts 5 and 6, and none independently placing him at the offences in counts 3 and 4.

Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appellant relied on later material concerning the West Midlands Police Serious Crime Squad and officers who had given evidence at his trial. The central issue was whether that material, and its potential use in cross-examination, rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the convictions on counts 3 to 6. It could not be sure that verdicts founded substantially on the alleged confessions were safe.

2. The issue was not whether membership of the Serious Crime Squad itself established misconduct. The court had to examine the particular evidence affecting each relevant officer and consider whether fresh material could legitimately have been used to test that officer’s credit. A finding of personal corruption or perjury was not essential before later material could undermine the safety of a conviction.

3. On counts 3 and 4, there was no independent admissible evidence placing the appellant at either robbery. The evidence of the alleged prison confession was therefore critical. Fresh material provided a legitimate and potentially effective basis for challenging Detective Sergeant Jennings’s credibility. That challenge could cast renewed doubt on the reliability of the alleged confession. The court also noted evidence favourable to the appellant, including the absence of a matching description in count 3. It could not be sure that the verdicts were safe.

4. On counts 5 and 6, Detective Sergeant Hancocks’s contemporaneous handwritten note and the evidence of two officers outside the Serious Crime Squad supported the prosecution account. Nevertheless, cross-examination of Detective Chief Inspector Taylor could have caused the jury to view the evidence of Serious Crime Squad officers, the appellant’s injuries, and the alleged confessions with increased scepticism. The court could not safely isolate those matters from one another.

5. The trial judge had sufficiently warned the jury about the dangers of the identification by Mr Holmes, despite not giving the full identification direction. However, the identification required reliable support from the confession evidence. Once that support could not safely be treated as reliable, the convictions on counts 5 and 6 were also unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2014] EWCA Crim 2047, allowed the appeal following a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference and quashed the convictions on counts 3 to 6.
• Court of Appeal On 11 March 1980, refused the appellant’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. No citation was stated.
• Birmingham Crown Court On 21 June 1978, convicted the appellant on counts 3 to 6 and imposed concurrent sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment.