- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Wright, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
Following a trial in the Crown Court, the Appellant and the Co-accused were convicted of murder. The Appellant received a life sentence with a specified minimum term of 14 years. [1][2]
The Appellant appealed against conviction following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission and applied to adduce fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. [3]
The proposed fresh evidence was a post-trial police report concerning an alleged false account given by a prosecution witness, Witness A, whose evidence included an alleged confession by the Appellant. The Court considered the material de bene esse. [4][5][6]
The prosecution case was that the Appellant and the Co-accused, who lived with the Deceased, were having an affair and jointly assaulted the Deceased after an argument. The trial evidence included witness accounts, CCTV, forensic bloodstain evidence, medical evidence, and evidence concerning the alleged confession. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the police report should be admitted as fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. [14][15]
- Whether, having regard to the fresh evidence and the evidence at trial, the Appellant’s conviction was unsafe under section 2(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. [16][17]
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The police report was capable of belief, would likely have been admissible at trial, and there was a complete explanation for its absence because it concerned post-trial events. [14][18]
- The report materially damaged Witness A’s credibility and provided a further basis for cross-examination. [18][19]
- Witness A’s evidence was central to the issues of the Appellant’s participation and intent, so the new material rendered the conviction unsafe. [18][19]
Prosecution’s Arguments
- The prosecution accepted that the report was capable of belief, concerned post-trial events, was likely to have been admissible as bad-character evidence, and could have been used to cross-examine Witness A. [20]
- However, the report did not provide a sufficient basis for allowing the appeal because the conviction was supported by overwhelming circumstantial evidence. [21]
- The jury had already been made aware of significant credibility concerns concerning Witness A, and the judge’s directions made it unlikely that the report would have affected the verdict. [22]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Mushtaq Ahmed [2010] EWCA Crim 2899 | The Court of Appeal must decide for itself whether fresh evidence causes it to doubt the safety of a conviction; possible impact on the jury is only a check on that assessment. | The Court adopted this approach in assessing the police report. [23][24] |
| Pendleton [2001] UKHL 66; [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 34 | The ultimate question is whether the conviction is unsafe, rather than the likely effect of fresh evidence on the jury. | The Court relied on this principle in determining the appeal. [24] |
| Dial [2005] UKPC 4; [2005] 1 WLR 1660 | The primary question concerning fresh evidence is for the appellate court itself, not what effect the evidence would have had on the jury. | The principle supported the Court’s independent assessment of safety. [24] |
| Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847 | The approach in Pendleton and Dial guides assessment of fresh evidence. | The Court stated that it agreed with the relevant analysis in Burridge. [24] |
| Stafford v DPP [1974] AC 878 | The jury-impact test is not determinative but may assist the court in testing its view of the safety of a conviction. | The Court applied this distinction when considering the likely significance of the police report. [24] |
| R v Garland [2016] EWCA Crim 1743 | The ultimate question remains whether the withheld material causes the court to doubt the safety of the conviction. | The Court followed this formulation. [25] |
| R v Barker (Marcus) [2021] EWCA Crim 603 | The question is whether the conviction is unsafe, having regard in particular—but not exclusively—to the factors in section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. | The Court used this as the governing approach to the fresh evidence application. [26] |
| R v Park [2020] EWCA Crim 589 | The approach in Ahmed has been repeatedly followed. | The Court noted its continued acceptance as part of the applicable law. [26] |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted that the police report was capable of belief, that its post-trial origin explained why it was not produced at trial, and that it would likely have been admissible because it adversely affected Witness A’s credibility. [15][27]
The Court then applied the statutory safety test. It held that the relevant question was whether the new material caused the Court itself to doubt the conviction, rather than whether it might have affected the jury. [16][23][26]
The Court accepted that Witness A’s alleged confession related to the Appellant’s participation in the killing and her intent. Nevertheless, it considered the remaining evidence to constitute an extremely strong circumstantial case of joint participation. [17][28]
The evidence included the Appellant’s intention to leave the Deceased, the argument shortly before the assault, CCTV showing both defendants wearing bloodstained footwear, their conduct when police attended, inconsistent accounts, and forensic evidence indicating that the Appellant’s footwear had likely been involved in kicking. [29][30][31][32]
The Court also found that the Appellant’s account of rape was inconsistent with the CCTV, the location of her bloodstained clothing, and the wider medical evidence. [33]
Witness A’s credibility had already been substantially undermined at trial through evidence of inconsistent accounts, hostility towards the Appellant, mental-health difficulties, admitted lying, and an equivocal response when challenged about the alleged confession. [34][35]
Accordingly, although the police report would have further damaged Witness A’s credibility, the Court considered it unlikely to have significantly affected the verdict. The jury’s conviction of both defendants also suggested that it had placed little weight on the alleged confession and had instead relied on the strong circumstantial evidence. [36][37]
Holding and Implications
The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The Court was satisfied that the conviction remained safe despite the fresh material. [38][39]
The direct effect was that the Appellant’s murder conviction remained in force. The opinion identifies no broader implications, and no new precedent was set. [39]
Alert