R v Basil Peterkin & Anor

Fresh evidence may render convictions unsafe where it shows that the principal prosecution witnesses were dishonest and were themselves committing substantially the same criminal conduct as that alleged against the accused. Where the witnesses’ credibility and the integrity of their investigation were central to the prosecution, that evidence may satisfy the criteria for admission under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and require the convictions to be quashed.

In 1977 Basil Peterkin and Saliah Mehmet were convicted of conspiracy to steal arising from alleged thefts of goods in transit at a British Rail parcel depot. Mr Mehmet was also convicted of theft and handling stolen goods. The prosecution relied principally on officers of the British Transport Police, including Detective Sergeant Ridgewell.

Both appellants later died. Following references by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, their sons were permitted under section 44A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to pursue appeals against conviction on their behalf. The references relied on fresh evidence that Ridgewell and two colleagues were convicted in 1980 of stealing goods from the same depot, and on wider evidence bearing on their integrity.

The central issue was whether that fresh evidence made the convictions unsafe.

1. The appeals were allowed and the convictions were quashed. The court formally received the fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Evidence that the principal police witnesses had been dishonest and had abused their position by stealing goods at the same depot met the statutory criteria for fresh evidence.

2. The credibility of those officers and the integrity of their investigation were central to the prosecution. Their 1980 convictions concerned the same general type of criminal conduct and occurred while they had been giving evidence against these appellants. This fundamentally undermined the reliability of the prosecution case.

3. The court applied the reasoning in R v Simmons [2018] EWCA Crim 114. Had the jury known that the principal prosecution witnesses were themselves engaged in the criminal activity they alleged against the accused, that fact would have been highly significant. It was an important matter unavailable at trial and therefore not put before the jury.

4. The Crown’s decision not to oppose the appeals was realistic and proper, but the court independently concluded that the convictions were plainly unsafe. It expressed regret that the injustice had not been rectified during the appellants’ lifetimes.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On Criminal Cases Review Commission references taking effect as appeals against conviction, the court allowed the appeals and quashed the convictions: [2024] EWCA Crim 309.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In 1978, Mr Peterkin’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. Mr Mehmet did not appeal at that time.
• Trial — In 1977, the appellants were convicted of conspiracy to steal; Mr Mehmet was additionally convicted of theft and handling stolen goods.