Jones v R
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
- MR JUSTICE TURNER
- MRS JUSTICE CARR DBE
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a conviction for perverting the course of justice. Initially found guilty based on the testimony of a witness, the appellant filed subsequent appeals citing new evidence that severely undermined the witness's credibility. The court acknowledged significant errors in evidence disclosure by the prosecution and accepted that the new material could have led the jury to doubt the witness's reliability. This made the original conviction unsafe, leading the court to quash it and decline an order for a retrial.
Judgment
Lord Justice Pitchford :
Introduction
This is an application for an extension of time of 27 days for the renewal of an application for a further extension of time of 4 years and 6 months within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction. For reasons that will appear below we grant the extensions of time required, give leave to appeal and allow the appeal.
On 23 August 2007, following a trial before His Honour Judge (“HHJ”) Orme at Birmingham Crown Court, the jury found the appellant guilty of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to common law. He was sentenced to a term of 12 years imprisonment; four hundred and thirty days were ordered to count towards the custodial term under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The prosecution case depended mainly upon the evidence of Maria Vervoort, who said that the appellant had, by threats and inducement, attempted to persuade her to absent herself as a witness from the trial of five defendants for murder and to make a false statement to a solicitor.
The appellant was represented at his trial by Mr Benson QC and Ms Mahmood, and the prosecution was represented by Mr Raggatt QC and Miss Hancox. On 7 February 2008 this court (Sir Igor Judge PQBD, Davis and David Clark JJ) dismissed the appellant’s appeal against sentence ( [2008] EWCA Crim 348 ). The appellant first submitted his notice and grounds of appeal against conviction, drafted by Mr Bennathan QC, on 21 March 2012. The grounds concerned the reliability of the evidence of the complainant, Maria Vervoort, which had been explored comprehensively at the trial. Leave to appeal was, for that reason, refused by the single judge, Eder J.
Mr Bennathan QC renewed the application for leave to appeal, out of time. The application was listed before the full court with the appeal to follow should leave be granted. The appellant relies partly on the grounds placed before the single judge and partly on new material that emerged only after his refusal of leave, which, it is submitted, demonstrates that the jury’s reliance upon the evidence of Maria Vervoort was misplaced and, therefore, the verdict is unsafe. The emphasis of Mr Bennathan’s oral submissions was, in our view rightly, on the new material.
Maria Vervoort’s evidence as a witness in the trial for murder
Maria Vervoort gave evidence in the trial at Birmingham Crown Court of five men charged with the murder of Clinton Bailey (“Bailey”):