R v Stock

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal by the Appellant against his conviction for robbery in 1970 at Leeds Assizes before Mr Justice Hinchcliffe and a jury, resulting in a 10-year imprisonment sentence. The original trial involved experienced counsel on both sides, and the Appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in 1971. The Appellant has consistently maintained his innocence and pursued multiple avenues to overturn the conviction, including an unsuccessful application to the European Court of Human Rights and several references to this court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) and the Home Secretary based on fresh evidence. These appeals and references were dismissed in 1996 and 2004.

The robbery involved the theft of cash takings from a Tesco store in Leeds on 24 January 1970. The store manager and another staff member were attacked and unable to identify the assailants, except that four men were involved. A warehouse manager, Mr Wilson, witnessed part of the attack and provided a description, which led to an identikit picture. This identikit was published, prompting identification of the Appellant by police and Tesco employees, who claimed to have seen a man resembling the identikit before the robbery. The Appellant denied involvement, provided an alibi supported by his wife and daughter, but refused to attend identification parades.

An internal police inquiry in 1979-1980, prompted by a confession from another individual admitting involvement and exonerating the Appellant, found no evidence to charge police officers with misconduct but noted doubts about the conviction. Subsequent investigations revealed issues with the identification procedures, undisclosed evidence, and the credibility of key witnesses, including Mr Wilson, who had undisclosed prior convictions. Despite these concerns, previous appeals upheld the conviction.

The current appeal, following a 2007 reference by the CCRC, raises fresh arguments about the fairness of the original police investigation, identification evidence, and the reliability of witness testimony, including that of a key prosecution witness who later admitted involvement in the crime.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the identification evidence against the Appellant was contaminated by improper police procedures, including the showing of photographs to witnesses and the failure to disclose relevant information to the defence.
2. Whether the summing-up by the trial judge was inadequate, particularly regarding identification and alibi evidence.
3. Whether the evidence of a key police officer, later discredited, tainted the conviction.
4. Whether fresh evidence, including confessions by another individual and new arguments about witness credibility, undermines the safety of the conviction.
5. Whether the court should depart from previous decisions given exceptional circumstances and new evidence or arguments.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The identification evidence of Mr Wilson was contaminated because he was shown photographs, including one of the Appellant, before the confrontation, which was not disclosed to the defence.
• The identification evidence of the three Tesco employees was similarly contaminated and unreliable.
• The trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on the dangers of identification evidence and alibi evidence.
• The evidence of Detective Sergeant Mather was tainted by his later proven dishonesty.
• Fresh evidence from Mr Benefield, who confessed involvement in the robbery and exonerated the Appellant, should be given greater weight.
• The Court of Appeal in 2004 misunderstood the arguments and wrongly rejected the contamination of identification evidence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The 2004 Court of Appeal correctly found that Mr Wilson was not shown photographs of the Appellant before the identikit was produced and that his identification was reliable.
• The identification by the three Tesco witnesses was consistent and credible, supported by their statements and prior photographic identifications.
• The summing-up, while not meeting modern standards, did not undermine the safety of the conviction.
• The evidence of Detective Sergeant Mather was discounted due to his discredited character, and his evidence was not critical to the conviction.
• Mr Benefield's evidence was not credible, as it conflicted with the identikit and other reliable identification evidence.
• The Court should be cautious in revisiting convictions decades old, particularly where the new evidence is not clearly compelling.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the long and complex procedural history of the case, including multiple appeals and references. It emphasized its overriding duty to assess the safety of the conviction, guided by established case law.

Regarding the central issue of identification evidence, the court carefully analyzed whether Mr Wilson was shown photographs of the Appellant before the confrontation on 5 February 1970. It agreed that if Mr Wilson’s 1979 statement was accurate, he was shown photographs by Detective Sergeant Mather after the weekend of the robbery, potentially including one of the Appellant. However, the court found that this evidence was not sufficiently clear or reliable to undermine the conviction’s safety. It reasoned that the identikit, compiled before the alleged showing of photographs, closely resembled the Appellant, and that Mr Wilson’s direct confrontation with the Appellant was highly compelling and critical to the jury’s verdict.

The court also considered the identification by the three Tesco employees, concluding that it was improbable they would have identified the Appellant at trial without prior positive identification from photographs. The court rejected retrospective arguments suggesting otherwise as unrealistic.

On the summing-up, the court recognized that modern standards for jury directions on identification and alibi evidence were not met, but found that the trial judge’s comments did not render the conviction unsafe. It discounted evidence from the discredited Detective Sergeant Mather and found that his evidence was not critical to the verdict.

Regarding fresh evidence from Mr Benefield, who claimed involvement in the robbery and exonerated the Appellant, the court found his evidence lacked credibility, especially as it conflicted with the identikit and credible witness testimony. The court was not persuaded that this evidence warranted overturning the conviction.

Overall, the court emphasized the difficulty of reassessing events decades after the trial, the absence of clear new evidence undermining the core identification, and the importance of the original jury’s assessment of witness credibility.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, upholding the conviction for robbery.

This decision means that the conviction remains valid and the Appellant’s efforts to overturn it have been unsuccessful despite multiple appeals and references over several decades. The court did not establish new precedent but reinforced the principle that the safety of a conviction depends on the reliability of identification evidence and the overall fairness of the trial process, assessed in light of all available evidence and procedural history.