R v Ronald De Souza

Fresh evidence is admissible on a criminal appeal where it materially undermines the prosecution case and demonstrates that the conviction is unsafe. That is particularly so where the prosecution relied centrally on police evidence later shown to be wholly unreliable through evidence of police corruption or dishonesty. A reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission takes effect as an appeal against conviction, and the Court of Appeal may determine it in the appellant’s absence where the appellant has notice, the appeal is unopposed, and proceeding is in the interests of justice.

Ronald De Souza was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in 1972 of attempted robbery and sentenced to six months’ detention. His application for leave to appeal was refused in 1973.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission later referred the case to the Court of Appeal after fresh evidence emerged concerning the dishonesty of DS Ridgewell, whose evidence had been central to the prosecution case. Four co-accused had previously had their convictions quashed on materially indistinguishable grounds. The Crown accepted that the fresh evidence was admissible under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and rendered the conviction unsafe. The central issue was whether the appeal should proceed in the appellant’s absence and whether the conviction should be quashed.

1. Proceeding in the appellant’s absence. The court had power to hear and determine the appeal despite Mr De Souza’s absence. He knew the date and time of the hearing, had made two unsuccessful applications to adjourn, had not abandoned the appeal, and had not communicated further with the court. The appeal was unopposed, and it was in the interests of justice, including his own interests, that it proceed without further delay. The court would send him its judgment and invite any matter he would have raised which might have affected the outcome.
2. Fresh evidence and safety of conviction. A CCRC reference takes effect as an appeal against conviction. The court formally received the fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. That evidence established the dishonesty and corruption of DS Ridgewell and wholly undermined the reliability of his evidence, which had been central to the prosecution case. It also provided positive support for the defendants’ account of events.
3. Disposition. The Crown properly conceded that the case was materially indistinguishable from the successful appeals of the four co-accused. The fresh evidence rendered the conviction plainly unsafe. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. The Crown confirmed that there would be no application for a retrial.

The court observed that the original jury and the single judge considering leave to appeal had been unaware of Ridgewell’s corruption, which was exposed only many years later.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The CCRC reference took effect as an appeal against conviction. The court proceeded in the appellant’s absence, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction.
• Central Criminal Court: Mr De Souza was convicted of attempted robbery in 1972 and sentenced to six months’ detention.
• Single judge: An application for leave to appeal was refused in March 1973.