Regina v G(G) & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

Two men, hereinafter referred to as the Appellants, were acquitted of active participation in a murder by shooting. A third man was convicted, having been disbelieved in his evidence denying presence at the crime scene. Subsequently, this convicted individual offered himself to the police as an informant under an agreement pursuant to section 74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. He then made a statement implicating the acquitted Appellants in the murder. The Crown applied under section 76 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for an order quashing the acquittals and directing a retrial. The court issued a detailed judgment subject to reporting restrictions to avoid prejudicing connected trials still outstanding, and provided a summary judgment under a pseudonymous case name for the acquitted men.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted persons, as required by section 78 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. Whether it is in the interests of justice to quash the acquittals and order a retrial, pursuant to section 79 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• The motives of the former co-defendant (the convicted informant) in giving evidence are cynical and self-serving.
• The informant contemplated using an offer of assistance to police as a fallback if his initial defence failed.
• The informant provided information to minimize his sentence, successfully obtaining a dramatic reduction.
• It is against the interests of justice to encourage defendants to maintain dishonest defences while relying on a fallback tactic of police assistance to reduce sentences.

Crown's Arguments

• The evidence of the convicted former co-defendant constitutes new and compelling evidence under section 78.
• Two other pieces of new evidence, while insufficient alone, support the informant’s evidence and collectively demonstrate its truth.
• The high threshold for quashing acquittals is recognized, but the Crown contends the evidence meets this standard.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application under the statutory framework of sections 76, 78, and 79 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It emphasized the high threshold for quashing an acquittal, requiring new and compelling evidence that could not reasonably have been presented at the original trial. The court acknowledged the cynical and self-serving nature of the informant’s evidence, noting his motivation to reduce his sentence and his willingness to tailor evidence to suit his interests. Although some supporting evidence existed, inconsistencies and the informant’s demonstrated dishonesty undermined the reliability of his testimony.

The court distinguished between the less exacting standard a jury might apply when evaluating witness credibility and the stringent test of "compelling" evidence required to overturn an acquittal. Given the informant’s manipulative conduct and the lack of incontrovertible new evidence, the court concluded the evidence was not sufficiently reliable or compelling to justify quashing the acquittals. The interests of justice test was considered but ultimately the case turned on the failure to meet the reliability requirement.

Reporting restrictions were imposed on the main judgment to prevent prejudice to related outstanding trials, with a procedure outlined for lifting these restrictions upon conclusion of those proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The court refused the Crown’s application to quash the acquittals and order a retrial.

The direct effect of this decision is that the acquitted men remain acquitted and will not face retrial on the murder charge based on the evidence presented. The court emphasized the exceptional nature of overturning acquittals and reaffirmed the stringent evidentiary standards required. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing statutory principles and case law. The ruling underscores the court’s caution in relying on evidence from incentivized informants and the importance of finality in criminal trials.