Rana, R v

On an appeal against conviction, the court must determine under section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 whether the conviction remains safe in the light of admissible fresh evidence. It must not speculate about what the jury might have decided had the evidence at trial been different.

Where fresh expert evidence demonstrates that agreed expert evidence was wrong, and the original evidence was an important part of the prosecution case on timing and credibility, the conviction may be unsafe even though the remaining evidence was capable of supporting a case to answer.

The applicant was convicted unanimously in the Crown Court at Shrewsbury of arson, reckless as to whether life was endangered, and an act tending to pervert the course of justice. She received six years’ imprisonment for arson and a concurrent four-month sentence for the second count.

The prosecution alleged that she set fire to her home and falsely blamed her boyfriend. Its case relied materially on agreed expert evidence that her telephone’s connection to the home wireless router placed her within 20 to 25 metres of the house shortly before the fire. On appeal, she sought to adduce fresh expert evidence showing that the router could connect at substantially greater distances. The central issue was whether that evidence rendered the convictions unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave to appeal and to adduce the fresh expert evidence. It quashed both convictions.
2. The fresh evidence established that the agreed trial evidence about the router’s maximum range was wrong. A connection at 02.15 did not show that the applicant was within 20 to 25 metres of the house. It could have occurred anywhere between the point where she was dropped off and her home, and the record did not disclose when she first came within range.
3. The original expert evidence was an important component of the Crown’s circumstantial case. It supported the proposed chronology and was deployed to challenge the applicant’s account that her telephone could connect from much further away. In a case relying heavily on admitted and alleged lies, it was powerful evidence against her credibility.
4. Applying section 2 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court’s task was to decide whether the convictions remained safe in the light of the fresh evidence, rather than to speculate about the jury’s likely verdict without the erroneous agreement. Although there remained a case to answer, the new evidence materially undermined the prosecution case on timing and the alleged lies. The convictions were therefore unsafe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal out of time, admitted fresh expert evidence, allowed the appeal, and quashed both convictions.
• Crown Court at Shrewsbury: On 4 September 2015, convicted the applicant unanimously of arson, reckless as to whether life was endangered, and doing an act tending to pervert the course of justice; imposed six years’ imprisonment for arson and four months concurrently for the second count.