Charlton & Anor v R

Fresh material concerning misconduct by police officers in other investigations does not itself make a conviction unsafe. The appellate court must decide safety for itself, by examining the trial evidence, the genuinely new material, and its actual effect on the conviction.

Statements by witnesses and confessions by suspects are subject to different statutory regimes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. A challenge to a witness’s evidence under section 78 requires a proper evidential basis for exclusion. An unequivocal guilty plea may be overturned only in exceptional circumstances where the conviction is unsafe. Alleged historic misconduct, without proof that it compromised the particular conviction, will not establish an abuse of process.

Charlton was convicted of the murder of Karen Price at Cardiff Crown Court in 1991. His first appeal was dismissed in 1994. Ali’s murder conviction was quashed on his first appeal, after which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter at a retrial.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred both convictions to the court. The appeals relied on material concerning misconduct by South Wales police officers in other murder investigations. Charlton challenged the reliability and admissibility of evidence from D and the effect of Ali’s evidence. Ali challenged the safety of his guilty plea. The central issue was whether the new material rendered either conviction unsafe.

1. Both appeals were dismissed. The court had to determine safety for itself. It was not enough that material unavailable to the jury might have affected its deliberations. The question was whether the fresh material caused the court to doubt the safety of the conviction.

2. Misconduct by officers in the Phillip Saunders and Lynette White investigations gave proper cause for careful scrutiny. It did not, however, establish misconduct in this investigation or automatically make either conviction unsafe. Each case required an assessment of its own evidence, the new information, and its likely significance.

3. D was a witness, rather than a suspect. Her evidence was therefore governed by section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, not the mandatory exclusion regime for confessions in section 76. The available material did not justify excluding her evidence. The defence had already robustly explored her vulnerability, inconsistent accounts and allegation of pressure. The new material would not have materially strengthened either an exclusion application or cross-examination.

4. There was substantial corroborative evidence unaffected by the alleged police culture. It included the location of the grave beside Charlton’s former flat, the carpet enclosing the body, evidence of his gardening activities, and evidence connecting him with Ali and Karen Price. Ali’s account would in any event have been before the jury as evidence in his own defence, subject to the judge’s directions.

5. Ali’s unequivocal guilty plea remained highly material. He was fit to plead, had received advice, gave instructions for the agreed basis of plea, and there was no new material capable of showing that the plea was induced improperly or that his conviction was otherwise unsafe. Nor did the alleged or proven police conduct meet the exceptional threshold for a stay as an abuse of process.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On Criminal Cases Review Commission references, dismissed both appeals against conviction: [2016] EWCA Crim 52.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In 1994, dismissed Charlton’s appeal against his murder conviction, but quashed Ali’s murder conviction and ordered a retrial. No citation is stated in the judgment.
• Cardiff Crown Court: At the retrial in December 1994, Ali pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
• Cardiff Crown Court: On 26 February 1991, Charlton and Ali were convicted of murder. Charlton received life imprisonment and Ali was detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure.