REGINA v GARETH HEAD

REGINA v GARETH HEAD

The non-disclosure of the complainant's convictions for drug driving and cannabis possession constituted a material breach of the prosecution's duty, and the fresh evidence was relevant and admissible to key issues in the case, including the credibility of the complainant and the plausibility of the applicant's defence. There was a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the evidence been available, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Gareth Head
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Fresh Evidence, Disclosure Obligations, Bad Character Evidence, Unsafe Conviction, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Fresh Evidence Disclosure Obligations Bad Character Evidence Unsafe Conviction Appeal Procedure

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Gareth Head

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-disclosure of the complainant's criminal convictions rendered the conviction unsafe
  2. 2 Whether the fresh evidence of the complainant's convictions should be admitted on appeal
  3. 3 Whether the conviction should be quashed in light of the fresh evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The non-disclosure of the complainant's convictions for drug driving and cannabis possession constituted a material breach of the prosecution's duty, and the fresh evidence was relevant and admissible to key issues in the case, including the credibility of the complainant and the plausibility of the applicant's defence. There was a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the evidence been available, rendering the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

conviction quashed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Fresh evidence admitted