REGINA v Wickens

Factual and Procedural Background

On 14 February 1991, the Appellant was convicted of the murder of an 89-year-old woman and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Crown Court at Maidstone before Judge Hodgson and a jury. The victim was found dead in her home on 1 September 1986, following a fire, with fatal facial and neck injuries caused by blunt force trauma. The police investigation initially failed to identify a suspect until November 1989, when two witnesses, former spouses of the Appellant, reported that he had confessed to the killing. Another ex-wife also provided evidence of a confession. The prosecution case rested solely on these alleged confessions.

The Appellant applied for leave to appeal against conviction multiple times between 1991 and 1999, with initial refusals and eventual abandonment of the application. He was advised to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission ("CCRC") for reconsideration. The CCRC investigated and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal under Section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, prompting the current appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was non-disclosure of material evidence relating to the time of death that could have assisted the defence.
2. Whether new pathological evidence concerning the time of death undermines the safety of the conviction.
3. Whether the jury was properly informed and directed regarding the timing of death and its implications for the alleged confession.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The prosecution failed to disclose a police document recording a conversation with the pathologist that suggested time of death inconsistent with the alleged confession.
• New expert evidence from the pathologists, including the Crown's own expert, indicated that death occurring at the time stated in the confession was "extremely unlikely."
• The jury was not given the benefit of this professional judgment, which could have significantly affected their assessment of the confession's reliability.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The critical information from the pathologist was effectively disclosed to defence counsel before trial and led by the Crown at trial.
• The disputed police document was an officer's inference rather than a direct statement from the pathologist and thus did not constitute material non-disclosure.
• The jury was properly directed on the timing of death, and the evidence was a matter for their judgment, which they rejected the defence's contention.
• There was no evidence of collusion among the witnesses who provided the confessions, and their knowledge of details unknown to the public supported their reliability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first examined the factual background concerning the victim's time of death and the evidence relied upon at trial, particularly the pathologist's testimony on rigor mortis and its timing. The Court noted the absence of a transcript of the pathologist's trial evidence and reconstructed it from the trial judge's summing up and prosecution notes.

The Court found that while the pathologist's evidence was that rigor mortis was fully established by the time of examination, the estimation of time of death was inherently imprecise and allowed a broad range. The prosecution had led this evidence, which was likely disclosed to defence counsel before trial.

The Court then addressed the alleged non-disclosure of a police document recording a conversation with the pathologist suggesting a time of death inconsistent with the confession. After analysis, the Court concluded that the document reflected an officer's inference rather than the pathologist's definitive opinion and thus did not amount to material non-disclosure.

Subsequently, the Court considered new expert evidence from the pathologist and other experts instructed by the CCRC. This evidence indicated that death occurring 39 to 40 hours before examination (consistent with the confession's timing) was "extremely unlikely" or "unlikely," a more cautious position than that presented at trial. The Court found that this evidence would have materially affected the jury's evaluation of the confession and the timing of death.

The Court also analyzed the trial judge's summing up, which treated the timing issue as neutral, and concluded that the judge would likely have presented the evidence differently had he been aware of the new expert opinions.

Finally, the Court acknowledged the prosecution's arguments regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the absence of collusion but emphasized that the new expert evidence introduced a significant doubt about the safety of the conviction.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeal and QUASHED the conviction.

The decision directly affects the parties by overturning the murder conviction of the Appellant due to the emergence of new expert evidence undermining the reliability of the timing of death evidence presented at trial. The prosecution does not seek a retrial. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established principles concerning safety of conviction and disclosure obligations.