REGINA v Dunne

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns four appellants convicted in the early 1980s by the now disbanded West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, whose convictions have been called into question due to police misconduct. The appellants were initially indicted alongside others on multiple counts and tried separately at Leicester Crown Court, receiving substantial prison sentences which have since been served. The cases were referred to the Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission between 1998 and 1999 following investigations that uncovered evidence of police malpractice, including torture and coercion of confessions by officers involved in the Serious Crime Squad. Key to the prosecution's case were testimonies by two participating supergrasses, whose evidence has since been discredited. Several convictions of related defendants have been quashed by this Court in prior decisions, further undermining the safety of the appellants' convictions. The Court also notes late disclosure of material relevant to the police officers' conduct during the appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions of the appellants are safe in light of police misconduct and the discrediting of key prosecution witnesses.
2. Whether the evidence of participating supergrasses, tainted by association with discredited police officers, can support the convictions.
3. Whether the conduct and credibility of specific police officers involved in the investigation and prosecution undermine the reliability of the convictions.
4. What impact late disclosure of material concerning police complaints authority investigations has on the appeals.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The supergrass evidence, particularly from Morgan and Mackay, was fundamentally tainted due to their close handling by discredited police officers, notably Detective Sergeant Brown, Detective Sergeant Hornby, and Detective Constable Price.
• The appellants relied on prior quashing of related convictions (Treadaway, Twitchell) and civil findings against police officers to argue the entire prosecution case was infected by misconduct.
• Specific police officers (Hornby, James, Leek, Quinn) had histories of dishonesty and fabrications that would have gravely undermined their credibility if known to the jury.
• There was a failure of disclosure of critical material, including an interview with Morgan, which could have materially affected the defense.
• Individual appellants denied involvement and challenged the reliability of the evidence against them, including alibi claims and explanations for financial transactions.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown, through Mr Sweeney QC, conceded that the evidence of Morgan and Mackay was tainted due to their association with discredited officers.
• The Crown accepted that the conduct of officers such as Hornby, James, Leek, and Quinn undermined the prosecution case and did not seek to uphold the convictions solely on the basis of such evidence.
• The Crown acknowledged that disclosure had been incomplete but that steps were being taken to improve future compliance.
• Concessions were made not to uphold certain counts of conviction where the evidence was particularly reliant on tainted witnesses.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully examined the evidence against each appellant, noting the fundamental role played by the testimony of two supergrasses, Morgan and Mackay, both of whom were closely associated with police officers later found to be not credible. The Court relied heavily on previous decisions quashing related convictions and civil findings against police officers demonstrating gross misconduct, including coercion and torture. The Court accepted the Crown's concessions that the evidence of the supergrasses was tainted due to their handling by discredited officers, and that the credibility of officers such as Detective Sergeant Hornby, Detective Sergeant Brown, Detective Constable Price, Detective Sergeant James, Detective Sergeant Leek, and Detective Constable Quinn was seriously undermined by prior findings and case law. The Court also considered the late disclosure of material relevant to the police officers' conduct, recognizing the detrimental effect on the appellants' ability to challenge the prosecution case. Applying the established legal test for safety of conviction, the Court concluded that no reasonable jury, properly informed of the tainting and misconduct, could be confident in the verdicts. The Court emphasized that the cumulative effect of the tainted evidence and discredited police conduct rendered all the convictions unsafe.

Holding and Implications

All four appeals are allowed and all convictions are quashed as unsafe.

The Court's decision directly overturns the convictions of the appellants, reflecting the serious impact of police misconduct and unreliable prosecution evidence on the integrity of the criminal justice process. No new legal precedent was established beyond applying existing principles concerning safety of conviction and the effect of police misconduct. The ruling underscores the necessity for full and timely disclosure of material relating to police officers' conduct in criminal appeals and signals the Court's intolerance of convictions founded on tainted evidence and discredited witnesses.