R v Phillipson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 1990 |
| Date | 21 December 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Ralph Gibson, Mr Justice Jupp and Mr Justice Waterhouse
Crime - drugs - non-disclosure of evidence before trial
Where a defendant had pleaded duress on a charge of being knowingly concerned in the importation of heroin the prosecution had been wrong not to disclose certain letters in their possession which, prima facie, were contrary to the defendant's case.
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal by Wendy Bridget Phillipson against her conviction on August 16, 1988 at Isleworth Crown Court (Judge Quentin Edwards, QC and a jury) on being knowingly concerned in the fraululent evasion of the prohibition of diamorphine on which she had been sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Mr Icah Peart, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Jonah Walker-Smith for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE RALPH GIBSON, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appellant went to Pakistan in November 1986 and returned on December 16, 1986 with 350 grams of heroin concealed inside her body.
She admitted that the heroin had been imported at the behest of Paul Icheke, a man with whom she lived and who was the father of her baby girl. At her trial the only contention advanced for her was that she had been acting under duress, namely threats by Icheke.
She gave evidence that apart from the initial few months the time she had lived with Icheke had been a misearble experience. He had forced her into prostitution. He regularly beat her up. He really showed no affection to her at all. He had never picked the baby up or shown any affection to it.
She had been relieved when he was ultimately arrested and received a long sentence. The only reason she went to Pakistan to bring back the heroin was because of the threats he had uttered in respect of her and the child. They were threats to kill her and the child.
In cross-examination certain letters and a photograph were put to the appellant by counsel for the prosecution. The appeal was based upon the alleged failure by the prosecution to disclose the letters before the hearing as part of the prosecution case.
The letters and the photograph produced at the trial fell into two categories. The first was of a number of letters said to have been written by Icheke to the appellant.
There was no evidence as to where they had been found or how they had been obtained by the prosecution. None of the Icheke letters was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Luke O'Dell
...18 Mr Bruce in his written advice on appeal has referred to a number of authorities, in particular the decision of this court in Phillipson [1990] 91 Cr.App.R 226 in support of the proposition that this evidence should have been disclosed. Phillipson is however in our view distinguishable. ......
-
DPP v O'Sullivan
... ... 66 In R. v. Phillipson [1990] 91 Cr. App. R. 226 , the accused was charged with importation of heroin. The fact of the importation was undisputed, and the defence put forward by the accused at the trial, consistent with her police interviews, was one of duress attributed to her former partner. When she gave evidence, ... ...
- R v Maguire
-
Public Prosecutor v NYH
...an accused in the course of the police investigation were obtained in breach of the Judges' Rules.’ (emphasis mine). In R v Phillipson, 91 Cr App R 226, the appellant was found with 350 grams of heroin inside her body. At her trial, she admitted the facts but claimed she had been acting und......