REGINA v Blackwell

Factual and Procedural Background

On 7th October 1999, in the Crown Court at Northampton before Judge Wilson Mellor QC (sitting as a deputy circuit judge) and a jury, the Appellant was convicted by majority verdict of indecent assault on a female. The assault allegedly occurred in the early hours of 1st January 1999 after the Appellant and the Complainant attended the same party at a social club in a village. The Complainant claimed that the Appellant attacked her outside the club, causing serious injuries.

Following the conviction, the Appellant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and was subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offenders Act 1997. On 22nd March 2001, on a reference by the Attorney General, the full court increased the sentence to five years but refused the Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction. The grounds for that earlier appeal differ from those currently advanced.

The current appeal arises from a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (the Commission) under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which identified new evidence raising doubts about the safety of the conviction. The Crown does not oppose the appeal on the primary ground advanced by the Commission and invites the court to conclude that the conviction is unsafe.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether new evidence relating to the Complainant’s credibility and propensity to lie, including medical and psychiatric history and prior false allegations, renders the Appellant’s conviction unsafe.
2. Whether the Crown failed to disclose evidence that could have undermined the prosecution case, specifically regarding the Complainant’s previous convictions and relevant medical and psychiatric records.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• There is new evidence not presented at trial that strongly suggests the Complainant was not the victim of the alleged assault and that her injuries were self-inflicted.
• The Complainant has a history of dishonesty, including previous false allegations of sexual assault and other offenses, supported by medical and psychiatric records indicating unreliability and a propensity for self-harm.
• The non-disclosure by the Crown of the Complainant's prior convictions and relevant medical history undermined the fairness of the trial.

Respondent's (Crown's) Arguments

• The Crown does not oppose the appeal on the first ground, conceding the conviction is unsafe based on the new evidence relating to the Complainant’s credibility.
• The Crown rejects the second ground concerning non-disclosure, asserting that at the time of trial the possibility that the assault did not occur was fanciful.
• The Crown agrees it is unnecessary to address the second ground in the present judgment given their concession on the first ground.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the new evidence presented by the Commission, which included multiple prior allegations made by the Complainant that were investigated and found to be false, as well as medical and psychiatric reports indicating a propensity for dishonesty and self-harm. The court noted that the Complainant’s accounts of the assault were inconsistent, with multiple differing statements given at various times. The judge's original summing-up had emphasized the centrality of the Complainant’s identification evidence and the absence of forensic corroboration.

The court accepted the Crown's concession that the new evidence cast serious doubt on the reliability and credibility of the Complainant’s testimony, rendering the conviction unsafe. Given this concession and the comprehensive review of the evidence, the court found it unnecessary to address the second ground concerning non-disclosure.

The court also expressed concern about the lack of legal mechanisms to displace the Complainant’s anonymity in future cases, should similar allegations arise, noting the potential injustice to future defendants.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED the appeal and QUASHED the conviction. This decision ends the criminal proceedings against the Appellant, who will no longer be subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offenders Act.

The direct effect is the complete acquittal of the Appellant. No broader precedent was established beyond the specific finding that the conviction was unsafe due to new evidence undermining the Complainant’s reliability. The court also ordered that the Appellant be awarded costs from central funds for expenses incurred in pursuing the appeal.