Drury & Ors R. v [2001] EWCA Crim 975 (11 April 2001)

Drury & Ors R. v [2001] EWCA Crim 975 (11 April 2001)

The court held that the Crown's earlier indication that Fleckney would not be called did not amount to a binding undertaking or an abuse of process when she later volunteered to testify; the change was bona fide and did not cause irremediable prejudice to the defence. The evidence of Fleckney and Putnam was admissible as there was no sufficient evidence of improper inducement, oppression, or PACE breaches to warrant exclusion. Non-disclosure issues did not render the convictions unsafe. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Crim 975
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Defendant: Christopher Drury; Defendant: Robert Clark; Defendant: Thomas Reynolds; Defendant: Terance O'Connell; Defendant: Thomas Kingston; Intervener: Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Legitimate Expectation, Police Corruption, Disclosure, Witness Credibility
Criminal Law Police Misconduct Evidence Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Legitimate Expectation Police Corruption Disclosure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Christopher Drury

Defendant

Robert Clark

Defendant

Thomas Reynolds

Defendant

Terance O'Connell

Defendant

Thomas Kingston

Defendant

Home Office

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal (criminal Division) Judgment on Appeals Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether calling a witness (Fleckney) after an earlier Crown indication not to do so constituted an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained from witnesses (Fleckney and Putnam) was inadmissible due to alleged inducement, oppression, or breaches of PACE
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure by the Crown undermined the safety of the convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Crown's earlier indication that Fleckney would not be called did not amount to a binding undertaking or an abuse of process when she later volunteered to testify; the change was bona fide and did not cause irremediable prejudice to the defence. The evidence of Fleckney and Putnam was admissible as there was no sufficient evidence of improper inducement, oppression, or PACE breaches to warrant exclusion. Non-disclosure issues did not render the convictions unsafe. The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction and sentence dismissed