R v Quinn

When a judge was asked to exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the first thing he had to consider was whether in all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the proceedings that he ought not to admit it.

The judge's function was, therefore, to protect the fairness of the proceedings. Normally, proceedings were fair if a jury heard all relevant evidence which either side wished to place before them.

But proceedings might become unfair if, for example, one side was allowed to adduce relevant evidence which, for one reason or another, the other side could not properly challenge or meet, or where there had been an abuse of process, for example, because evidence had been obtained in deliberate breach of laid down procedures.

Lord Lane, Lord Chief Justice, so stated when giving the reserved judgment of the Court of Appeal at the Central Criminal Court, dismissing an appeal by William Joseph Quinn against his conviction at the Central Criminal Court (Mr Justice Rose and a jury) after a five-day trial in February 1988 for the murder of Police Constable Tibble by shooting when he attempted to stop the appellant who was running away in a street in the Barons Court area of West London. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Section 78 of the 1984 Act provides:

"(1) In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evdence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it."

Mr Michael Mansfield, QC and Mr Nicholas Blake for the appellant; Mr John Mathew, QC and Mr Oliver Sells for the Crown.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said that PC Tibble was shot in February 1975 while trying to stop a man running away from a brother officer, PC Blackledge, who had been speaking to him.

Eleven weeks later PC Blackledge went to the Special Criminal Court in Dublin where the appellant was on trial for offences committed in the Republic of Ireland. PC Blackledge identified the appellant as the man who shot PC Tibble.

The sole question raised in the appeal was whether, in accordance with section 78, the evidence of identification should have been withheld from the jury at the Central Criminal Court trying the appellant for the murder of PC Tibble.

The trial judge decided that it should not be withheld.

Immediately after the shooting spent cartridges were recovered and later it was possible to identify the gun which had been used. On the

following day a different gun and some ammunition were found at 39 Fairholme Road, an address given by the appellant when spoken to by PC Blackledge.

There were also items of bomb-making equipment and the appellant's fingerprints were found on household items.

The appellant had refused in Ireland to stand on an identification parade.

It was clear that just before the appellant's appearance in court in Dublin there was contact between the Irish and English police, which resulted in PC Blackledge being sent to Dublin to see if he could identify the killer.

An attempt at identification in court was all that was on offer. The appellant was not told of the efforts to identify him.

There was evidence that, in 1975, it was difficult to obtain extradition...