Lane, R v

A conviction is not rendered unsafe merely because a police officer involved in the investigation was later proved corrupt, even where it is assumed that the dishonesty may have pre-dated the trial. The applicant must identify evidence, rather than speculative possibilities, that the officer’s misconduct affected the investigation or trial so as to cast real doubt on the conviction.

Likewise, material suggesting that other persons may have committed the offence does not undermine a conviction unless it provides a reliable and meaningful basis for doubt. Associations, untested intelligence, alleged false alibis and involvement in other offences may raise possibilities, but they do not suffice where the proposed alternative case remains speculative.

Kevin Lane was convicted, following a retrial at the Central Criminal Court in March 1996, of the murder of Robert Magill. He received life imprisonment with an 18-year minimum term. The first jury had failed to agree.

More than 15 years later, Lane sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction. He relied principally on the later-established corruption of Detective Sergeant XKF, who had played a significant role in the investigation and had given evidence at trial. He also contended that material now pointed to Roger Vincent and David Smith as the likely killers, and suggested that XKF had corrupt relationships with them.

The central issue was whether the new material and allegations rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The court granted the extension of time but rejected the application to appeal. The conviction was not unsafe.

2. The court proceeded on the favourable assumption that XKF’s dishonest practices might have pre-dated Lane’s trials. That assumption did not, however, permit an inference that XKF was responsible for every development adverse to the defence. The alleged manipulation of financial evidence, the eyewitness description, the availability of Michael Cox, and the entry in the doormen’s book each depended on speculation or lacked evidence of improper intervention by XKF.

3. XKF’s later corruption and his extensive involvement in the investigation gave proper cause for careful scrutiny. Yet, apart from the possible issue concerning Cox, no complaint identified conduct by XKF which called the fairness or proper conduct of the trial into question. The possible issue concerning Cox did not undermine the safety of the conviction, since there was no evidence of how XKF came to report that Cox was missing and the defence could itself have explored Cox’s availability.

4. The material concerning Vincent and Smith did not provide a sufficient alternative case. Their association, possible involvement in other shootings, anonymous information, purported alibis, and links with Bennett were capable of generating suspicion. They did not supply reliable material showing that either man, rather than Lane, committed the murder. The alleged corrupt relationship with XKF was likewise unproved.

5. The court therefore held that the grounds amounted largely to generalised criticism of a corrupt officer and an invitation to infer misconduct from adverse trial developments. That approach could not establish that the conviction was unsafe. The application was rejected.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time exceeding 15 years, but rejected the application to appeal and upheld the conviction.
• Central Criminal Court: At a retrial in March 1996, Lane was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with an 18-year minimum term. The jury at the first trial had failed to agree.