Peter Jones v Regina

Fresh alibi evidence cannot found an arguable challenge to the safety of a conviction unless it is capable of belief. Where reliable prosecution material demonstrates that the proposed alibi is false, the evidence does not satisfy the criteria for reception under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 23. The court need not then examine the remaining statutory criteria or allegations advanced to explain why the alibi was not deployed at trial.

The applicant sought leave, nearly six years out of time, to appeal his 2008 conviction for murder at the Central Criminal Court. He asserted that, contrary to his trial evidence, he had been at a restaurant in Southend when the victim was shot in Clacton. He sought to rely on new alibi evidence and alleged that threats and violence had compelled his false trial account.

After the identity of a proposed alibi witness was disclosed, the prosecution served letters and recordings of prison visits and telephone calls. The central issue was whether the proposed fresh evidence was sufficiently credible to be received under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and to render the conviction arguably unsafe.

1. The court refused leave to appeal against conviction. The proposed fresh alibi evidence was completely devoid of credibility and could not make the murder conviction arguably unsafe.

2. Under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court had to consider whether it was arguable that the fresh evidence should be received. It could in principle receive prosecution fresh evidence in the interests of justice: [2002] 2 Cr.App.R. 30.

3. The court rejected the applicant’s allegation that transcripts of covertly recorded prison visits had been fabricated. The prosecution’s repeated offers to allow his legal representatives to check the recordings against the transcripts made that allegation fanciful. The evidence established that the visits were recorded and transcribed.

4. The new material wholly undermined the principal proposed alibi witness. It showed an intimate relationship with the applicant, contrary to her account, and showed that neither discussed a supposedly available alibi during relevant prison visits. Later telephone calls were inconsistent with a genuine alibi and supported the conclusion that the proposed evidence was false.

5. The remaining alibi witnesses did not overcome those defects. Once the alibi evidence was incapable of belief, it was unnecessary to consider the other section 23 criteria. The asserted explanation for failing to deploy it at trial was also plainly unreasonable. The allegations of intimidation did not assist, because they depended upon the false alibi.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The applicant’s out-of-time application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused: [2018] EWCA Crim 1599.
• Central Criminal Court: The applicant was convicted of murder on 8 January 2008 following a joint trial before HHJ Padget.