REGINA v Brown

Factual and Procedural Background

On 28th January 1977, a 51-year-old woman was murdered in her flat in Hulme, Manchester. The victim's body was discovered on 31st January 1977, with multiple blunt force injuries to the head. The appellant, aged 19 at the time, was subsequently charged with the murder. The prosecution's case relied principally on confessions the appellant was said to have made to police officers, alongside identification evidence and witness testimony regarding the appellant's presence and condition around the time of the murder.

The appellant was arrested in May 1977 and underwent a series of police interviews during which he was alleged to have made incriminating admissions. The appellant denied these admissions and alleged police assault and fabrication of evidence. At trial before Milmo J at Manchester Crown Court on 19th October 1997, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The appellant's conviction was previously unsuccessfully appealed in 1978. Subsequently, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in 2002 under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, prompting this appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the conviction is safe in light of fresh evidence concerning police corruption and nondisclosure of forensic evidence.
2. The impact of linguistic analysis on the reliability of the appellant's alleged confession.
3. The effect of nondisclosure of fibre evidence linking another individual to the victim on the jury's verdict.
4. Whether the trial judge's summing-up properly directed the jury on the burden and standard of proof regarding the confession's integrity.
5. The credibility of key prosecution witnesses in light of later contradictory statements.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The integrity of Detective Inspector Butler, who took the statements and was later convicted of corruption, was crucial; nondisclosure of his misconduct at trial undermined the safety of the conviction.
• Linguistic expert evidence indicated the confession statement was partly constructed from police-elicited answers rather than a spontaneous confession, supporting the appellant's denial.
• The nondisclosure of forensic fibre evidence linking another man, previously identified by a witness, to the victim raised reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt and the reliability of the confession.
• The combined effect of these matters renders the conviction unsafe and unreliable.

Crown's Arguments

• Initially, the Crown contended the conviction was safe, relying on the trial evidence and the summing-up.
• However, following disclosure of new evidence and expert consensus on the confession's nature, the Crown acknowledged serious difficulties in upholding the conviction's safety.
• The Crown maintained that some grounds of appeal, such as the summing-up and witness credibility issues, were not persuasive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully considered the fresh evidence disclosed after trial, including the Topping Report revealing systemic police corruption involving Detective Inspector Butler, linguistic expert analyses of the confession statement, and previously undisclosed forensic fibre evidence. The Court noted that Butler's integrity was central to the trial, as he was the scribe and present during the confession, and his later criminal conviction for corruption seriously undermined his credibility.

The linguistic experts agreed that the confession statement was likely partly composed of answers to police questions rather than a free narrative, lending support to the appellant's denial of a genuine confession. The fibre evidence linked another man, identified by a witness as being with the victim shortly before her death, to the crime scene, which could have raised reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.

The Court rejected criticisms related to the trial judge's summing-up and the credibility of certain witnesses as insufficient to undermine the conviction on their own. However, the cumulative effect of the fresh evidence meant the Court could not be sure the jury would have convicted had they known of these matters. Applying the test from Pendleton, the Court found the conviction unsafe.

Holding and Implications

The Court's final decision was to QUASH THE CONVICTION and allow the appeal.

This ruling directly results in the appellant's conviction being overturned on grounds of safety due to significant new evidence undermining the prosecution case. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning fresh evidence and conviction safety. Costs were ordered to be paid out of Central Funds to be taxed accordingly.