[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Christian, R v [2003] EWCA Crim 686 (20 February 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/686.html Cite as: [2003] EWCA Crim 686

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		Thursday 20th February 2003

1. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: This appeal of Darren Christian comes before the court as a result of a Reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission made under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. On 15th September 1992 at the Central Criminal Court, Darren Christian was convicted of possessing a shotgun without a firearm certificate. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
2. He appealed and his appeal was dismissed. The matter was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission who, having carried out their own investigations, came to the conclusion that the conviction could not be regarded as safe because police officers involved in the search of the premises where the shotgun was alleged to have been found had since been found wanting and indeed considered guilty of corruption. It is not desirable to name names because we are unclear as to whether or not there have been any criminal prosecutions. Suffice it to say that it now appears that some at least of the officers involved in the arrest of the appellant and in the alleged finding of the shotgun had been party to a corrupt practice which involved taking around with them imitation weapons, primarily with a view to planting them on persons who may perhaps have been "shot" in the course of the carrying out of police duties, in order, it is suggested, to justify police actions on those occasions.
3. Given that background, the Crown represented by Mr Jeremy do not attempt to uphold the convictions as safe. Of course it remains a matter for this court and the decision does not ultimately rest with the Crown, but we respect the Crown's position and we happen to agree with it. In our view the conviction cannot be regarded as safe and accordingly the appeal succeeds and the conviction will be quashed.
4. MR DEIN: May I raise one very short matter? There is an application which I am asked to make for a defendant's costs order relating to expenses incurred by the appellant in respect of the former appeal, that is to say representation throughout the early 1990s. My Lord, I do not intend to trouble the court with detail, but I am asked to make the application and to invite your Lordships to say in principal, subject to taxation, that a defendant's costs order would be --
5. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: You do not have any figures?
6. MR DEIN: My Lord I have not been given figures today, but details will be supplied for the purpose of taxation so that costs can be granted from central funds once taxed if your Lordships makes the order.
7. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: Yes, Mr Dein, a defendant's costs order, costs to be taxed.
8. MR DEIN: Thank you very much indeed. I am grateful.
9. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: You do not oppose that, do you, Mr Jeremy?
10. MR JEREMY: No, my Lord.