REGINA v PAUL BOND

Where the prosecution relies on a co-defendant’s conviction to establish the existence of a conspiracy, non-disclosure of material relevant to the conviction’s admissibility or reliability can deprive the accused of a fair trial. Decisions made by the defence and the judge while unaware of relevant material, including a later acceptance of the conspiracy or failure to renew a challenge at retrial, may reflect the prejudice caused by non-disclosure. If the accused was thereby prevented from presenting the case in its best light and the convictions cannot be regarded as safe, the Court of Appeal should quash them.

The applicant was convicted at a retrial in the Crown Court at Southwark of two conspiracies to give corrupt payments and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. His first trial had ended without verdicts. He applied 271 days out of time for leave to appeal against conviction, relying on material which the Serious Fraud Office had failed to disclose at trial.

In the related appeal of R v Akle and Bond [2021] EWCA Crim 1879, the Court of Appeal had found that the same material was relevant to the admissibility and reliability of a co-defendant’s guilty pleas and had quashed Akle’s convictions. The central issue was whether that non-disclosure had similarly handicapped the applicant’s defence and rendered his convictions unsafe.

The court granted the extension of time, gave leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions on counts 2 and 4 of the original indictment, renumbered as counts 1 and 2 at retrial.

1. The applicant’s defence statement had put the existence of the alleged conspiracies in issue, not merely his own participation in them. The prosecution proved that element by relying on evidence of BAJ’s convictions under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The statutory presumption arising from a proved conviction gave the prosecution an obvious evidential advantage.
2. The undisclosed material was unarguably relevant to the admissibility of those convictions, including a possible application under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and to their reliability as evidence of guilt. The earlier reasoning in R v Akle and Bond [2021] EWCA Crim 1879 therefore applied equally to the applicant.
3. The court rejected the suggestion that the applicant’s failure to make separate or renewed challenges demonstrated an absence of prejudice. His representatives and the judge acted in ignorance of material which should have been disclosed. His later acceptance of the conspiracies and tactical shift in focus could not fairly be relied on when those decisions had been made on incomplete information. It was unrealistic to conclude that the non-disclosure had no material effect on his ability to present his case in its best light.
4. The applicant had not received a fair trial and his convictions were unsafe. The Serious Fraud Office did not seek a retrial under section 7(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, which the court regarded as a proper and fair position. Costs submissions were left to be made in writing.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 24 March 2022, the court granted an extension of time, gave leave to appeal against conviction, allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions. The citation is [2022] EWCA Crim 427.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 10 December 2021, a differently constituted court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence. In the related appeal, it allowed Akle’s appeal against conviction in R v Akle and Bond [2021] EWCA Crim 1879.
3. Crown Court at Southwark: The applicant was convicted at retrial of two conspiracy counts and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment.