Admissibility of Fresh Credibility Evidence in Criminal Appeals: Larkin v [2020] EWCA Crim 1298

Introduction

In the case of Larkin, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1298, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales addressed a crucial issue concerning the admissibility of fresh evidence in criminal appeals. The applicant, aged 56, was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He faced acquittal on two counts of assault by penetration under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The core of his appeal centered on the introduction of new evidence—a witness statement from Ms. Shireen Robinson—that allegedly undermined the credibility of the prosecution's key witness, AB. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the court's judgment, and the broader legal implications stemming from this decision.

Summary of the Judgment

After his conviction in the Crown Court at Sheffield on December 11, 2019, the applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He sought to appeal his conviction by introducing fresh evidence from Ms. Robinson, a friend of the complainant, AB. The applicant's legal team argued that Ms. Robinson's statement demonstrated inconsistencies in AB's account, thereby rendering the conviction unsafe.

The Court of Appeal examined the admissibility and reliability of Ms. Robinson's evidence. It concluded that the statement was unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies in Ms. Robinson's account and the impracticality of its late submission. Furthermore, the court determined that admitting this evidence would not significantly alter the jury's perception of AB's credibility, given the extensive challenges already presented during the trial. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction was upheld.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced statutory provisions governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal appeals. Notably, Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 and Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were pivotal in determining whether the fresh evidence should be admitted.

Additionally, the court considered prior case law regarding the standards for admitting new evidence and the principles governing the safety of convictions. These precedents emphasized the need for fresh evidence to be both credible and capable of rendering a conviction unsafe, thereby ensuring that justice is served without undermining the finality of legal judgments.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on a multi-faceted analysis of the fresh evidence's reliability, relevance, and potential impact on the original conviction. Under Section 23(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, the court may consider evidence not previously adduced if it deems it necessary for justice.

In assessing Ms. Robinson's statement, the court evaluated:

Capability of Belief: The court found Ms. Robinson's testimony untrustworthy due to inconsistencies in her account, such as contradictory timelines and motivations for coming forward.
Admissibility: The evidence failed to meet the standards set by Section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires that such evidence would have been admissible during the original trial.
Impact on the Conviction: The court determined that even if the evidence were admitted, it would not significantly alter the jury's assessment of AB's credibility, as robust challenges to her testimony were already presented during the trial.
Reasonable Explanation for Non-Adduction: The timing and circumstances surrounding the submission of Ms. Robinson's statement lacked a plausible explanation, particularly given the applicant's prior awareness of her as a potential witness.

Combining these factors, the court concluded that allowing the new evidence did not serve the interests of justice and that the original conviction remained safe.

Impact

The judgment reinforces stringent standards for introducing fresh evidence in criminal appeals, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to balancing the finality of convictions with the necessity of ensuring just outcomes. Future cases will likely reference this decision when evaluating analogous applications for new evidence, emphasizing the need for such evidence to be both credible and substantial enough to challenge the safety of existing convictions.

Moreover, the case highlights the judiciary's cautious approach towards hearsay and late-submitted statements, ensuring that only reliable and pertinent evidence influences appellate decisions. This stance aims to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system by preventing frivolous or unreliable appeals that could undermine public confidence in legal outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

This section allows the Court of Appeal to consider new evidence not presented during the original trial, but only if it is deemed necessary or expedient for justice. The court evaluates factors like the evidence's believability, its potential to influence the appeal, its admissibility in the original proceedings, and whether there's a valid reason it wasn't presented earlier.

Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Specifically, Section 114(1)(d) pertains to hearsay evidence, which is an out-of-court statement presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For such evidence to be admissible, certain conditions must be met, ensuring its reliability and relevance to the case.

Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Under Section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, this offense involves causing another person actual physical injury, such as bruises or broken bones, without it being classified as more severe assault or grievous bodily harm.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay refers to a statement made outside of court that is presented to prove the truth of its content. Generally, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it meets specific exceptions, ensuring that the evidence is sufficiently reliable.

Conclusion

The Larkin, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 1298 judgment serves as a significant precedent in the realm of criminal appeals, particularly concerning the admissibility of fresh evidence aimed at challenging witness credibility. By meticulously analyzing the reliability and relevance of Ms. Robinson's statement, the Court of Appeal upheld the original conviction, emphasizing the necessity for new evidence to be both credible and substantially impactful to alter judicial outcomes.

This decision reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding the integrity of criminal convictions while ensuring that justice is not thwarted by unreliable or irrelevant evidence. Legal practitioners and future appellants must take heed of the stringent criteria outlined in this case when seeking to introduce new evidence on appeal, ensuring that such evidence meets the high standards required to influence substantial legal determinations.