THE QUEEN v Asiedu

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, following refusal by a single judge. The applicant had pleaded guilty to this offence at a re-trial in November 2007. Previously, he was tried alongside others on an indictment charging conspiracy to murder and the lesser offence, arising from the same conduct. At the end of a long trial in July 2007, the jury convicted four co-defendants but was unable to reach a verdict on the applicant. Upon the applicant's guilty plea at the re-trial, the Crown did not seek re-trial of the more serious count or another count of possession of explosives with intent.

The charges arose from an event on 21 July 2005, two weeks after fatal suicide bombings on London Transport on 7 July. The defendants were accused of taking home-made bombs onto the London transport system. Five bombs, contained in rucksacks and triggered by electric devices, were carried separately by five defendants. Four devices were activated on underground trains and a bus but failed to explode fully, causing noise and confusion but no major explosion. The fifth device was abandoned in a park. The Crown alleged a plot to kill using these devices, which were constructed from domestic ingredients including flour and hydrogen peroxide, with shrapnel packed around the bulk charges. The defendants were arrested following CCTV identification and other evidence, including the use of two London flats as bomb-making locations.

The applicant, upon arrest, gave largely untruthful statements, denying knowledge of the bombs and involvement in purchasing hydrogen peroxide. Police investigations established that the applicant was instrumental in purchasing large quantities of hydrogen peroxide, which was concentrated for bomb-making. Other defendants later amended their defence statements, alleging the bombs were hoaxes intended as political statements, claiming they were made with diluted peroxide to reduce potency. The applicant distanced himself from this hoax defence, asserting he was unaware of the intended suicide mission until the night before deployment and abandoned his device.

Following the jury's inability to reach a verdict in his initial trial, the applicant pleaded guilty at re-trial to the lesser conspiracy offence after discussions with counsel and the Crown, submitting a detailed factual basis for the plea. He was sentenced to 33 years imprisonment in November 2007. An application for leave to appeal the sentence was refused in 2008.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the applicant's conviction is unsafe due to alleged non-disclosure by the Crown of material relating to scientific evidence.
2. The impact of the applicant's plea of guilty on the safety of the conviction and the possibility of an appeal notwithstanding such plea.
3. Whether non-disclosure of certain forensic documents amounted to an abuse of process or affected the fairness of the trial.
4. The relevance and reliability of scientific evidence given by an expert witness and the effect of criticisms of that evidence on the conviction.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Non-disclosure of forensic laboratory documents constituted an abuse of process, committed in bad faith.
• Dr Black, the scientific expert, committed perjury in his evidence when explaining amendments to his original report.
• Had the non-disclosure been revealed before or during trial, the proceedings would have been stayed and there would have been no re-trial or guilty plea.
• But for the non-disclosure, the applicant might have been acquitted at trial.
• The non-disclosure misled the applicant, leading him to plead guilty to a false case.
• The applicant was deprived of a real choice to plead guilty, rendering the plea a nullity.
• The plea was not a true confession to the offence.

Respondent's Arguments

• Non-disclosure, while a failure of prosecutorial duty, does not amount to abuse of process or unfairness requiring a stay.
• The applicant’s plea of guilty was a voluntary and unambiguous admission of guilt supported by his own factual basis of plea.
• Scientific criticisms of Dr Black’s report did not undermine the safety of the conviction, nor did they relate materially to the applicant’s intention, which was the central issue.
• Even if Dr Black’s evidence contained errors, these were corrected and did not affect the applicant’s admissions or the strength of the Crown’s case.
• There was no evidence of deliberate cover-up or bad faith by the Crown in disclosure.
• The plea of guilty precludes appeal except in limited circumstances not applicable here.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application focusing on the safety of the conviction given the applicant's guilty plea and the alleged non-disclosure of forensic documents criticizing expert evidence.

It acknowledged the serious nature of non-disclosure but distinguished it from abuse of process. Non-disclosure is a prosecutorial failure that may render a conviction unsafe if it affects the defence, but it does not automatically render the trial unfair or justify a stay unless it amounts to gross misconduct or abuse.

The court explained that a guilty plea is ordinarily a voluntary, unambiguous admission of guilt that precludes appeal unless the plea was compelled by law or the trial was unlawful or abusive. The applicant’s plea was voluntary and supported by a detailed factual basis, including admissions of involvement and intention.

The court rejected the appellant’s argument that the non-disclosure was an abuse of process or that Dr Black’s evidence amounted to perjury. It found no evidence of deliberate bad faith by the Crown and no reason to believe the trial would have been stayed or that the applicant would have been acquitted had full disclosure been made.

Regarding the scientific evidence, the court noted criticisms of Dr Black’s report, including overstated conclusions and methodological issues, but found these did not materially affect the core facts or the applicant’s admissions. The critical issue was the applicant’s intention, which was his own knowledge and admission, unaffected by the disputed scientific points.

The court emphasised that the applicant’s plea was an unequivocal confession to the offence, unaffected by the non-disclosure or scientific criticisms. The failure to disclose certain documents did not impact the safety of the conviction or the voluntariness of the plea.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or serious injury to property stands. The court did not establish any new legal precedent but reaffirmed established principles regarding the effect of guilty pleas on appeals, the limited circumstances in which non-disclosure amounts to abuse of process, and the assessment of expert evidence criticisms in the context of a plea.