Case No: 200106692B2 & 200206662C2
Neutral Citation No: [2003] EWCA Crim 3358
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CRIMINAL 
CASES REVIEW COMMISSION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, 
London, WC2A 2LL

Thursday 27th November 2003
Before:

LORD JUSTICE MANTELL
MR JUSTICE BUTTERFIELD
and 
MRS JUSTICE COX

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

	Regina		
	- v -		
	Christopher Hagans
and
John Michael Wilson		

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040,  Fax No:  020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr M Turner QC (instructed by the Registrar) for both the Appellants
Mr N Sweeney QC (instructed by the CPS) for the Crown

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Lord Justice Mantell:
1.	On 21st October 2003 the court heard linked appeals of Christopher Hagans and John Wilson, both cases having been referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission pursuant to section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
2.	We allowed the appeals, which were unopposed, and quashed the relevant convictions.  We said we would give our reasons at a later date and that we now do.  
3.	On 20th May 1883 John Wilson was convicted at Leicester Crown Court and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.
4.	On 1st December 1983 Christopher Hagans was convicted at Leicester Crown Court of conspiracy to rob (count 1), robbery (count 2) and unlawful possession of a firearm (count 4).  He received concurrent sentences of ten years, fourteen years and four years imprisonment respectively.  
5.	Both trials were part of a series of related trials all heard at Leicester Crown Court during 1983.  In the first, which had taken place in January, Ronald Brown, Donald Brown and Michael Johnson had been convicted of various offences alleged to have been committed in 1979 and including charges of robbery and conspiracy to rob.  All three received substantial sentences.  In a second trial which took place in February a number of men including one Derek Treadaway were convicted of offences of robbery and conspiracy to rob.  Treadaway was sentenced in total to fifteen years imprisonment.  The jury failed to agree in the case of a certain John Wilson who was retried in May 1983 and duly convicted of conspiracy to rob.  He received a sentence of ten years imprisonment.  Hagans’ trial took place in November, 1983.
6.	In Hagans’ trial there were a number of defendants.  Among those named as co-conspirators but not standing trial were Treadaway and Wilson.  
7.	At trial the main evidence came from a ‘super-grass’ one Richard Mackay.  Other evidence of oral confessions or incriminating remarks came from police officers from the West Midlands Police Serious Crime Squad (SCS).  The appellant’s case was that Mackay and the police officers were not speaking the truth.  
8.	Following conviction Hagans sought leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  He was refused both by the single judge and the full court.  However, it was noted by the full court giving judgment on 25th March 1985 that:
“The prosecution relied heavily upon the evidence of Richard Mackay.”
9.	All four trials to which reference has been made were connected, in that evidence given at each included that of either Mackay or another ‘super-grass’ called Morgan.  Both Mackay and Morgan had been handled by the SCS.  Morgan had been arrested in August 1980 and confessed guilt to a number of offences of robbery.  He was granted bail but absconded to Gibraltar.  He was eventually arrested in September 1981.  As a result of information provided by Morgan, Mackay was arrested on 17th December 1991 for an armed robbery in Droitwich.  In the late summer of 1982 Mackay also became a ‘super-grass’.  On 14th October 1982 he pleaded guilty to various offences of conspiracy to rob and robbery and asked for further offences to be taken into consideration.  By the time of the trials in 1983 he had received his sentence of five years imprisonment.  He made a number of statements at the behest of the SCS and in due course gave evidence in accordance with those statements which was to the effect that  Hagans together with Treadaway, Wilson and others had joined with him in committing a number of very serious robberies.  For present purposes the details are unimportant.  
10.	Hagans had been arrested as a result of the information supplied by Mackay.  In the course of speaking to officers of the SCS and being interviewed it is said that he had made a number of incriminating remarks.  Again it is unnecessary to rehearse the details.  As previously mentioned, Hagans’ defence was that he had not made the incriminating remarks attributed to him and had been falsely implicated by Mackay.  
11.	Since the Court of Appeal originally refused leave to appeal there have been a number of developments which Mr Sweeney QC for the Crown tells us are “highly significant.”  For one thing the SCS has been wholly discredited and was disbanded by the Chief Constable for the West Midlands in 1989.  Some of its members have been convicted of disciplinary offences and several appeals against conviction have been allowed on the basis that convictions were obtained in part, at any rate, on the basis of evidence given by discredited SCS officers.  
12.	In 1994 Treadaway succeeded in a civil claim for assault brought against West Midlands Police.  McKinnon J found that Treadaway had been assaulted by five officers including those who had been responsible for interviewing Hagans.  In the course of giving judgment McKinnon J found as a fact that the officers had put a bag over Treadaway’s head in order to restrict his breathing.  McKinnon J also found that the named officers had given false evidence in the trial.
13.	Since then this court has quashed the convictions of several of those convicted on the strength either of Mackay’s evidence or evidence of members of the West Midlands SCS.  In each of those cases the Crown has not sought to uphold the convictions and, indeed, whilst allowing that it is always a matter for the Court has, if asked, respectfully suggested that the only proper course is for the appeals to be allowed.  
14.	So it is in the present case.  It is not necessary to mention the police officers names save to identify two of them as being disbelieved on their oaths by McKinnon J in the civil action and to reiterate that important evidence against Hagans had come from the mouth of Mackay also considered by this Court to be a tainted witness by virtue of his having been handled by those two officers.  
15.	As already noted Mr Sweeney for the Crown has made a number of concessions and when asked directly told the court that he was not prepared to support the convictions by argument.  
16.	Given those concessions and the matters to which we have referred it is impossible for this court to continue to regard the convictions of Hagans as safe.  Accordingly we allowed his appeal and quashed the convictions.  
17.	As we have already remarked John Michael Wilson was convicted following a retrial.  That was of one count of conspiracy to rob and resulted in a sentence of ten years imprisonment.  As with Hagans, Wilson’s application for leave to appeal was refused both by the single judge and the full court. 
18.	Again, as with Hagans, following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission he relies upon the fact that Richard Mackay who gave evidence against him was handled by officers of the West Midlands Police Serious Crime Squad who have subsequently been totally discredited with the result that several convictions have been quashed in circumstances similar to the present.
19.	Both Mackay and Wilson had been amongst a number of people arrested for serious crimes following upon statements made by Morgan.  Once Mackay had decided to turn Queen’s evidence he made a statement involving the appellant in the serious robbery at Droitwich in October 1982.  His statement was witnessed by a member of the West Midlands SCS who has since been thoroughly discredited.  
20.	At Wilson’s trial the judge referred to Mackay’s evidence as being “obviously of considerable importance” but warned the jury that Mackay’s evidence needed to be approached with great care given the fact that he had undoubtedly lied or indicated a willingness to lie about various matters and further was, on any view, an accomplice.
21.	What we have said with regard to Hagans applies equally to the case of Wilson.  Mr Sweeney for the Crown has made similar concessions and further does not seek to uphold Wilson’s conviction on the basis of evidence outside that of Mackay and the suspect police officers.  Even though there was separate evidence from that of the police officers to support what Mackay said in evidence, we do not consider that it is possible to maintain the safety of the conviction when the most important evidence in the prosecution case can be shown to be tainted.  We certainly cannot say that the jury must have convicted absent the evidence of Mackay.
22.	Accordingly on 21st October 2003 we allowed Wilson’s appeal and quashed his conviction.