R v Calvert 2025
A group of masked men entered S’s home and attacked him; they shot him in the knee and then poured acid over him. His wife witnessed the event. S later died in hospital. Four hours earlier there had been another shooting at a different house. Forensic evidence relating to the bullets showed that the bullets came from the same handgun. There was a connection between the two shootings, a feud between two rival groups. CA was believed to be the ringleader of one of the groups. Evidence against CA consisted of identification evidence from S’s wife, evidence of motive, and a cell confession made by CA to another prisoner, CO, while on remand.
The defence case was that CO was not credible, that he had been bribed or otherwise induced to commit perjury. The judge did stress to the jury that CO was a man with numerous previous convictions, including for dishonestly and his evidence was to be viewed with caution.
CA was convicted of possession of firearm with intent to endanger life and murder.
CA renewed his application for permission to appeal against the murder conviction, and this was referred to the Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). This was based on the new evidence of -
- a statement of retraction made by CO in prison, when visited by L in 2021 (a private investigator instructed by CA’s family). In this statement, CO confessed to lying on oath at trial, stating that he’d done so as he was threatened that his sister would be harmed if he didn’t.
- a statement from L confirming that CO had admitted to him in prison after the trial that he’d lied about CA confessing to him. L exhibited a page of notes he’d taken during the conversation he’d had with CO which CO had signed.
Held
Appeal dismissed. Conviction safe.
It was not necessary in the interests of justice to admit the fresh evidence (under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1923) because -
- L was subject to instruction (by CA’s family) rather than conducting an independent investigation. Although L was committed to acting professionally in the investigation he conducted, he was ignorant, if not wilfully blind, to CA family’s “rather distorted and subjective” outlook of the case which should have alerted him to the possibility of undue influence upon CO and subconsciously, upon his own independent role.
- they placed no weight upon the retraction recorded by L in the statement of CO as a retraction of the evidence. CO at the appeal hearing unequivocally disowned the substance of the retraction statement when it was read over to him.
- there was disparity between L’s contemporaneous notes of the prison meeting and the retraction statement signed by CO. The appeal court determined they did not have to reach a conclusive view on why the disparity between the two occurred, rather the fact that they did find that it occurred and rendered the witness statement signed by CO as an unreliable record of events.
- the character of CO at trial had been fully exposed to the jury through cross examination. He was revealed as manipulative, dishonest and inconsistent. The jury were not assisted by any fresh evidence from CA to the contrary.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
