R v P; R v Blackburn (Derek Stephen)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | President of the Queen's Bench Division,P |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Crim 2290 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | Case Numbers: 2007/01764/B5 (1) and 2007/01455/A7(2) |
| Date | 22 October 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Crim 2290
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT (1)
ON APPEAL FROM NEWCASTLE CROWN COURT (2)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The President of the Queen's Bench Division
Mr Justice Pitchers and
Sir Richard Curtis
Case Numbers: 2007/01764/B5 (1) and 2007/01455/A7(2)
Mr Andrew Mooney (Solicitor Advocate) (instructed by Law Mooney Lee & Cook) for the appellant 'P'
Mr Jonathan Rees (instructed by CPS) for the Crown (1)
Mr Christopher Knox (instructed by Graeme Cook) for Blackburn
Mr Toby Hedworth QC (instructed by CPS) for the Crown (2)
Hearing dates: 17 th July 2007 and 10 th October 2007
Judgement
President of the Queen's Bench Division
This is the first occasion when this court is required to address sections 71–75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA). These provisions, which came into force on 1 April 2006, created a statutory framework which formalised and developed well established common law principles, formerly embraced in the well understood phrase –“Queen's Evidence”.
R v P – The Facts
P was arrested in 2004 for offences arising from the importation of controlled drugs and remanded in custody. While awaiting trial, he instructed his solicitor to contact police officers investigating the murder of X, which occurred some years earlier. As a result, in early 2005, a meeting was arranged between the applicant and a senior investigating police officer. During the course of the meeting P provided information relating to the murder. He also provided information about the unrelated criminal activity of a major drug dealer.
In due course P pleaded guilty to conspiracy to supply a controlled drug of class C (cannabis resin). In July 2005 in the Central Criminal Court, he was convicted of two further conspiracies relating to the supply of class A drugs (crack cocaine). These convictions arose from his original arrest.
Shortly before the sentencing hearing, a “text” was prepared on P's behalf which informed the judge of the information which P had provided in the course of the meeting in early 2005. The text stated that no police operation had been instigated as a result of the information provided by P, and he had not placed himself at any exceptional risk in supplying the intelligence. There was nothing to indicate that he would be willing to assist the police in the future.
In the light of all the information available to the judge, total sentences of 17 years imprisonment were imposed.
Thereafter two separate processes were under way. P appealed against sentence and he also contacted the police again. He provided information relating to a current murder investigation. At a subsequent meeting he agreed to give evidence against those persons alleged by him to be responsible for the murder of X, as well as detailing the criminal offences which he had personally committed. The effect of these conversations were incorporated in a further “text” prepared by a senior police officer for the purposes of P's appeal against sentence. In February 2006 this court reduced the total sentence from 17 to 15 years imprisonment. Subsequently a confiscation order was made under the Proceeds of Crime Act for fractionally under £1 million.
The next chapter in this case begins with the coming into force of SOCPA 2005 on 1 April 2006. Following the earlier discussions, P entered into a written agreement with a prosecutor specified for the purposes of section 71 of SOCPA 2005. The agreement is signed by the specified prosecutor, and P himself, in the presence of his solicitor. It may be valuable to set out its terms, so that a typical example will be publicly available. Save only for redactions to avoid possible identification, the agreement is provided in full.
“1. The parties to this agreement are:
• P c/o Z, Solicitors, and
• Y, a Crown Prosecutor and a specified prosecutor under section 71(4) and 73(10) of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
2. It is hereby agreed that P will assist the investigator and/or prosecutor in relation to the investigation being conducted by the Metropolitan Police into the murder of X and associated offences.
3. Assistance under the terms of this agreement will include the following:
(a) P will participate in a debriefing process. He undertakes during the process, which will be tape recorded and conducted following a caution, fully to admit his own involvement in any crimes.
(b) P will plead guilty to and/or ask to have taken into consideration such of the offences he has admitted as agreed with/stipulated by the prosecutor; a schedule of offences admitted by P is attached to this agreement at Annex 'A'.
(c) P must provide the investigator with all facts, statements, documents, evidence or any other information available to him relating to the said investigation and offences, and the existence and activities of all others involved.
(d) P shall maintain continuous and complete co-operation throughout the investigation of the said offences and until the conclusion of any court proceedings arising as a result of the investigation. Such co-operation includes but is not limited to P
(i) Voluntarily and without prompting, providing the investigators with all information that becomes known to him or available to him relating to the said offences, in addition to any such information already provided;
(ii) Providing promptly, and without the prosecutor using powers under any section of the Act, all information available to him wherever located, requested by the investigator in relation to the said offences, to the extent that it has not already been provided;
(iii) Complying with any agreement with, or instructions from, the Witness Protection Unit or other agency (including the Probation Service in relation to release on licence) as to his residence and travel arrangements (to include foreign travel and/or possession of travel documents) after his release from custody;
(e) P will attend court as required by the prosecutor and give truthful evidence in any court proceedings whatsoever arising from the investigation and the said offences, clarification of which has already been given to his solicitors and agreed by him.
4. Y will ensure that full details of the assistance provided by P under the terms of this agreement are placed before any court before which P appears for sentencing; a copy of the above details will be made available for prior examination by his solicitors.
5. Y will also ensure that, in relation to the term of imprisonment currently being served by P, full details of the assistance provided by P under the terms of this agreement are placed before the Crown Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 74 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005; a copy of the above details will be made available for prior examination by his solicitors.
6. Nothing in this agreement will affect the liability of P for any confiscation order made under the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (or similar legislation).
7. Failure to comply with the terms of this agreement may result in any sentence of the court that P may receive
• In relation to the offences admitted under this agreement or
• In consequence of any referral to the Crown Court under paragraph 5 above, being referred back to the court for review pursuant to section 74 of the Act.”
P was removed from the prison where he was serving his sentence. He was relocated at a secure unit. The debriefing process began in May 2006 and concluded at the end of the year. A number of interviews under caution took place. They resulted in the production of four witness statements signed by P. They described (a) his own criminal activities, (b) the murder of X, (c) the alleged commission of a serious drugs offence and (d) his comments on transcripts of covert tape recordings of conversations between himself and others which had taken place during 2004, and formed part of the evidence against him at his 2005 trial.
As a result of his own admissions during the debriefing sessions, P was then charged in a further separate indictment with a number of offences. He appeared at the Central Criminal Court on 9 March 2007. He pleaded guilty to an indictment containing 13 counts of criminal activities in connection with the supply of drugs, largely class B (cannabis) but also one count of being concerned in the supply of class A drugs (cocaine) and another for allowing premises to be used for the purposes of such supply. These offences went back to February 1983 and varied in their seriousness, but taken together undoubtedly constituted serious criminality. Nine further offences were admitted and taken into consideration. The TICs include an incident of theft of a motor car which took place between 1970 and 1974 and theft of a plant during 1991. Although there are some serious offences in the list of TICs, the major criminal activity was encompassed in the counts in the indictment. The minor, virtually historic offences of theft, provides an indication that P was expected to and did admit such criminal activity that he could remember. The second matter before the Judge was a reference back under section 74(3) of SOCPA by the specified prosecutor for a review of the sentence of 15 years imprisonment, as substituted by the Court of Appeal for the original sentence.
The judge was supplied with witness statements which set out the nature and extent of the assistance provided by P in accordance with his written...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Chaudhary (Yasser)
... ... They are set out and analysed in R v P and Blackburn [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 5 ... We need not repeat the essential features in detail but there are a ... ...
-
Re Loughlin (application for judicial review (Northern Ireland))
...The 2005 Act 7 The background to the 2005 Act is well explained in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v P and Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290. At para 22 the court said this: "There never has been, and never will be, much enthusiasm about a process by which criminals receive lower se......
-
R v Haggarty (Gary)
...That this is the correct approach is endorsed by the leading Court of Appeal decision in this field namely R v P, and Blackburn [2008] 2 All ER 684 which has been adopted by our Court of Appeal in R v Hyde [2013] NICA 8. In this context the totality principle was described as “fundamental” ......
-
McKinnon v United States of America
...beyond that) in the particular circumstances provided for by sections 71-75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005"see R v P; R v Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290. No less importantly, it is accepted practice in this country for the parties to hold off-the-record discussions whe......
-
Through the wire – the SFO’s plan to obtain evidence using informants
...2 Section 71 SOCPA 3 Section 72 SOCPA 4 Section 73 SOCPA 5 R v P; R v Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290 6 Queen's Evidence – Immunities, Undertakings and Agreements under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, available at https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/queens-evidence-immuni......
-
Can The SFO Crack' More Cases By Getting Suspects To Co-Operate?
...Osofsky may ultimately find, however, that using SOCPA agreements to 'crack' more SFO cases is easier said than done. Footnotes: [1] [2007] EWCA Crim 2290 [2] [2010] EWCA Crim 1048 [3] The Government White Paper that preceded SOCPA noted that "the assumption will always be... that the major......
-
Attorney General's Guidelines On Plea Discussions In Cases Of Serious Or Complex Fraud
...offer to provide information or give evidence will be dealt with in accordance with section 71 to 75 SOCPA 2005, R-v-P, R-v-Blackburn (2007) EWCA Crim 2290 and guidance agreed and by DPP, Director SFO and Director RCP. Discussion of Pleas If the prosecutor is to accept a guilty plea he or s......
-
Cross-Border Investigations Update - November 2015
...“Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea, Definitive Guideline” (2007), at Annex 1, paragraph 3(c). 33 R v. Blackburn (Derek Stephen) [2007] EWCA Crim 2290; R v. Dougall (Robert) [2010] EWCA Crim 1048. 34 See United States v. Hoskins, No. 3:12CR238 (JBA), 2015 WL 4774918 (D. Conn. Aug. 13, ......