REGINA v THOMAS BRIAN WILLIAMS (DECEASED)

A conviction from a historic trial may be unsafe where material prosecution evidence was not disclosed, particularly where original witness statements were destroyed and later statements followed photographic identification. Trial fairness is assessed by applying the common law as currently understood. A prior decision concerning materially similar trials may be determinative where the court agrees with and applies its reasoning. Where a deceased defendant’s representative cannot bring a direct appeal because of a statutory time restriction, a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference may provide the route to appellate review in exceptional circumstances. The appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed.

Thomas Brian Williams was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Shrewsbury in 1974 of affray and unlawful assembly and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. No appeal was brought. After his death, a note was discovered recording that original witness statements had been destroyed and replaced after witnesses had been shown photographs. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case to the Court of Appeal in light of R v Warren and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 413. The central issues were whether the non-disclosure rendered the trial unfair and the convictions unsafe, and whether the Commission reference was the appropriate procedural route.

Appeal allowed and convictions quashed.

1. Procedural route. The court accepted the Commission’s analysis under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Because the approved representative was authorised to act more than one year after the appellant’s death, a direct application was unavailable under section 44 A(4). The Commission reference was therefore the only available route, and exceptional circumstances justified it despite the absence of a previous appeal.
2. Trial fairness. The non-disclosure of the conference note and of the destruction of original witness statements was highly significant. The original accounts had been made before witnesses saw photographs and before investigators’ case theory had developed. Their destruction prevented the defence from properly exploring changes in identification evidence and could have affected cross-examination, the calling of defence evidence and the jury’s assessment of guilt.
3. Application of authority. The court agreed with the reasoning in R v Warren and Others [2021] EWCA Crim 413, including its approach to applying current common-law standards in historic cases. That decision was determinative. By modern standards, the appellant had not received a fair trial, and the convictions were accordingly unsafe.
4. Order. The appeal was allowed and the convictions for affray and unlawful assembly were quashed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the appeal was allowed and the convictions were quashed: [2022] EWCA Crim 270.
• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Referred the case after concluding that the non-disclosure and destruction of witness statements had rendered the trial unfair and the conviction unsafe.
• Crown Court at Shrewsbury: The appellant was convicted in 1974 of affray and unlawful assembly and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. No application for leave to appeal was made.