Introduction

Johnson v Regina ([2022] EWCA Crim 832) is a significant case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on June 22, 2022. The appellant, Jennifer Johnson, was convicted of perverting the course of justice and making a false statement in relation to the infamous "Babes in the Wood" murders committed by her then-partner, Russell Bishop. This case delves into the complexities surrounding the defence of duress within the context of a coercive and controlling relationship, scrutinizing the boundaries and applicability of such a defence in the modern legal landscape.

Summary of the Judgment

Jennifer Johnson, at the age of 56, was convicted in 2021 for perverting the course of justice and making a false statement during the investigation into the murders of Nicola Fellow and Karen Hadaway. Her false statements played a pivotal role in the initial acquittal of Russell Bishop in 1987. However, with advancements in DNA technology and the abolition of the double jeopardy rule in 2003, Bishop was retried and convicted in 2018. Subsequently, Johnson admitted to making false statements under duress, leading to her conviction being upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal meticulously examined Johnson's appeals against both her conviction and sentence, addressing three primary grounds:

• The assertion that a fair trial was impossible due to the 34-year delay between the alleged offences and the prosecution.
• Claims that the trial judge's summing up was biased and amounted to a direction to convict, thereby denying Johnson a fair trial.
• Arguments that the defence of duress, as formulated, inadequately addresses situations involving violent, coercive, and controlling relationships.

After thorough deliberation, the Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming both the conviction and the sentence imposed on Johnson.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several pivotal cases that influence the court's stance on duress and procedural fairness:

• R v Maxwell [2010] UKSC 48: This case addresses the abuse of process in criminal proceedings, particularly when fairness is compromised due to procedural irregularities.
• R v Latif [1996] 2 Cr App R 92: Establishes the balancing act courts must perform when weighing policy considerations against justice in cases involving delay.
• R v Hasan [2005] UKHL 22: Clarifies the requirements for the defence of duress, emphasizing the necessity of immediacy and the inability to take evasive action.
• R v GAC [2013] EWCA Crim 1472: Recognizes Battered Woman's Syndrome as a relevant consideration in assessing claims of duress.

These precedents collectively shape the Court of Appeal's interpretation of duress and the parameters within which it operates, especially in contexts involving domestic abuse and coercive relationships.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning is anchored in the stringent criteria for the defence of duress. The court underscored that duress must involve imminent threats of death or serious injury, leaving no room for an open-ended defence. The appellant's claim hinged on her assertion of coercion and a threatening environment orchestrated by Bishop and his family.

The court evaluated whether the prolonged delay in prosecuting Johnson's offences rendered a fair trial impossible. Citing R v Latif, the court balanced the adverse effects of delay against the integrity of the criminal justice system. It concluded that the delay did not inherently preclude a fair trial, especially given the emergence of new evidence through DNA analysis and the eventual conviction of Bishop.

On the matter of the summing up, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately addressed the inconsistencies in Johnson's testimony and had not exhibited any bias. The judge's directions to the jury were deemed balanced and in line with legal standards, ensuring that the defence of duress was properly framed within the established legal context.

Regarding the third ground of appeal, the court reaffirmed that the existing legal framework for duress, as outlined in R v Hasan and supported by R v GAC, sufficiently accommodates cases involving violent and coercive relationships. The defence must still meet the stipulated requirements of immediacy and lack of viable escape routes.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the rigorous application of the duress defence, particularly in cases marred by lengthy delays and complex interpersonal dynamics. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining procedural fairness and protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, even when faced with challenges such as delayed prosecutions and claims of coercion.

Furthermore, the case sets a precedent for how courts should approach offences committed under sustained domestic abuse. It delineates the boundaries within which the defence of duress can be successfully mounted, emphasizing the necessity for clear and compelling evidence of immediate threats and the absence of feasible escape options.

Legal practitioners will find this case instrumental in understanding the interplay between duress, coercive control, and procedural delays. It also highlights the importance of maintaining robust standards in witness protection and the evaluation of evidence over extended periods.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Duress Defence

The duress defence can excuse a defendant from criminal liability if they committed an offence under the threat of imminent death or serious injury, leaving them with no reasonable opportunity to escape the situation. Key elements include:

• Imminency: The threat must be immediate, not future or speculative.
• Inability to Escape: The defendant must demonstrate that they had no viable means to avoid committing the offence.
• Reasonable Belief: The defendant must genuinely and reasonably believe in the threat's validity.

In this case, Johnson claimed she acted under duress due to threats from Bishop and his family. However, the court found that her actions did not meet the strict criteria required for this defence.

Perverting the Course of Justice

Perverting the course of justice involves acts that interfere with the administration of justice, such as lying under oath or tampering with evidence. Johnson's false statements about the Pinto sweatshirt were deemed to have undermined the judicial process, leading to Bishop's initial acquittal and subsequent miscarriage of justice.

Double Jeopardy Rule

The double jeopardy rule traditionally prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same offence. However, the abolition of this rule in 2003 allows retrials in cases where new and compelling evidence emerges, such as DNA evidence in Bishop's conviction.

Conclusion

The Johnson v Regina judgment serves as a crucial reaffirmation of the stringent requirements governing the defence of duress within the English legal system. By meticulously dissecting the appellant's claims and aligning them against established legal precedents, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity for clear evidence of immediacy and the absence of escape routes to successfully invoke duress.

Additionally, the case highlights the judiciary's vigilance in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice process, even in the face of significant procedural delays and complex interpersonal dynamics. The dismissal of Johnson's appeals reinforces the principle that while mitigating factors such as coercive control and domestic abuse are vital considerations, they must be substantiated within the rigid framework of legal defences.

For legal professionals and scholars, this case offers invaluable insights into the application of duress defences, the evaluation of witness credibility over extended periods, and the balancing act courts perform between procedural fairness and the pursuit of justice.