Ratcliff, R. v

There is no general rule that a prosecution relying on an Assisting Offender must await completion of every investigation into that offender and every person implicated by him. The court must balance proper investigation and disclosure against bringing cases to trial within a reasonable time. A defendant must show actual unfair prejudice before a stay for abuse of process is justified.

The need and terms of a warning about a witness are generally matters for the trial judge. Where the witness was not an accomplice in the charged offence, an adequate caution as to credibility and possible self-interest does not require a corroboration direction.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Newcastle, sitting at Teesside, of conspiracy to possess a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life. The prosecution relied substantially on Craig Winch, an Assisting Offender, who said that the applicant had admitted firing the shots.

A single judge refused a short extension of time to seek leave to appeal against conviction. On the renewed application, the applicant alleged unfair delay in investigating possible hotel CCTV evidence, abuse of process arising from the timing of investigations into Winch's criminality, and inadequate directions about Winch's evidence. The central issue was whether any proposed ground could arguably render the conviction unsafe.

1. The renewed application was refused. None of the proposed grounds was arguable, and there was therefore no purpose in extending time to seek leave to appeal. The court was satisfied that the conviction was not unsafe.

2. The judge correctly admitted evidence explaining why the hotel inquiry had not been made earlier. It became relevant after the defence alleged inadequate investigation. The prosecution's agreement to exclude evidence of a threat to Winch and his family removed any unfair prejudice. The judge also properly directed the jury that the applicant had lost the opportunity to test the allegation by independent CCTV evidence.

3. The court rejected the proposed policy that trials based on an Assisting Offender's evidence must await completion of all investigations into that offender and every person he has implicated. No such requirement appeared in Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2015 or in the cited authorities. The correct approach was to balance the need for investigation and proper disclosure against the need to try other cases within a reasonable time. The applicant had shown no actual prejudice: any relevant hotel footage would already have been deleted before Winch identified him or mentioned the alleged spa visit.

4. Winch was not an accomplice to the shooting. Applying R v Makanjuola [1995] 2 Cr App R 469, the court held that the judge had discretion as to the need, strength and terms of a warning. Her repeated caution about Winch's criminality, self-interest and credibility was sufficient. The assessment of his reliability was for the jury, and neither a stronger warning nor a direction to seek corroboration was required.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal and a short extension of time: [2019] EWCA Crim 2267.
• Crown Court at Newcastle, sitting at Teesside: On 28 June 2018, convicted the applicant of conspiracy to possess a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life.