REX v NIGEL PIPE (DECEASED)

Where a convicted person dies, the court may permit a widow to continue an application for leave to appeal under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 44 A. Leave may be granted where grounds alleging an unfair trial are arguable and require substantive consideration.

In an historic sexual-offence prosecution, material issues may include whether missing evidence concerning earlier allegations caused serious forensic prejudice, and whether deferring an abuse-of-process application until the close of the prosecution case materially affected the defence strategy. Those issues require assessment in the particular trial context.

Rex v Nigel Pipe (Deceased) concerned an application by the widow of a defendant who had died after his conviction and sentence at Nottingham Crown Court for historic sexual offences.

The trial judge had dismissed an abuse-of-process application after the prosecution case, and had maintained that ruling after the defence case. The applicant contended that the timing of that ruling and missing evidence arising from earlier investigations meant that the defendant could not receive a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the grounds were arguable and identified the relationship between the 1966 allegations, the missing material, and the defence's trial strategy as matters requiring substantive appellate consideration.

1. Leave to appeal was granted on all three grounds. Under section 44 A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the deceased defendant's widow was permitted to continue the application.

2. The grounds were arguable, although the Crown's response had substance. The complexity of the background justified a substantive hearing with the Crown's assistance.

3. The principal issues for that hearing included whether the absence of documents or witnesses concerning allegations made in 1966 seriously prejudiced the defence's ability to address the evidence concerning C2. A further issue was whether postponing the abuse-of-process application until the close of the prosecution case caused significant unfairness by requiring the defence to make strategic decisions before knowing the application’s outcome.

4. The court did not determine the merits of those issues. It granted representation orders and directed that the substantive appeal be listed with a one-day estimate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted the deceased defendant's widow leave to continue the application and granted leave to appeal against conviction on all grounds. The merits of the appeal remained to be determined.
• Nottingham Crown Court: On 12 October 2021, the defendant was convicted unanimously of historic sexual offences. On 14 October 2021, he received a special custodial sentence of 28 years.