R v Plummer 2025
P1 was convicted on the 19th June 2023, of the murder of C-G who died on the 28th February 1997. There was no doubt that she had been murdered and the issue for the jury was whether they were sure that it was P1 who had committed the crime.
P1 had allegedly confessed to a number of crimes, including the murder of C-G, to a cellmate, D, whilst intoxicated with cannabis. The confession was recorded in a witness statement provided by D in December 1997. D passed away in 1999. The statement was admitted as hearsay evidence under section 121 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It was not to be excluded under either section 126 of that Act or section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
It was alleged that P1 had confessed to his mother, the conversation was confirmed to have taken place by P1's brother, P2, in court. However, P2 was not present at the time of the conversation so was unable to confirm the contents of the conversation, just that he believed it took place on a certain date.
The court did not consider after the close of the prosecution case whether the evidence was so unconvincing that the P1’s conviction would be unsafe as required by section 125 of the 2003 Act and was not asked to do so.
The prosecution argued that the hearsay evidence from D was admissible, reliable, and central to their case. They highlighted supporting circumstantial evidence, D's accurate reporting of burglary confessions, and behavioural patterns suggesting P1's guilt.
The defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish the confession’s reliability, given D's history of dishonesty and his role as a paid police informant. They argued that the hearsay evidence was unconvincing, inconclusive, and tainted by its method of collection, including potential benefits sought by D. The defence also questioned the admissibility of multiple hearsay statements involving P1 and the overall fair trial standards.
P1 appealed against his conviction and raised the following issues:
- Whether the statement was properly admitted.
- Whether the case should have been stopped under section 125 of the 2003 Act.
- Whether the directions of the judge in summing the case up to the jury sufficiently assisted the jury to evaluate the hearsay evidence so that their verdict should be found to be safe.
Held
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
The case should have been stopped under section 125 of the 2003 Act at the conclusion of the evidence. The judge failed to conduct an assessment of the hearsay evidence under section 125 of the Act and the failure to do so rendered the conviction unsafe.
D’s evidence:
The importance of D's evidence to the case against P1 was decisive to the case and without it there was no case to answer, or at least a very weak case. The witness could not be cross-examined due to being deceased and whilst alive he was never examined in chief, when the account would be elicited without leading questions. The admission of D’s statement assumes that, if called, he would have come up to proof. There is no reason to make that assumption following character evidence.
Although a direction was given to the jury regarding D’s evidence, it was generic and did not go far enough to tell the jury that the whole case depended on whether they accepted that P1 had made a confession to D. The decision for a section 125 assessment is best decided at a point when a judge can assess the safety of any conviction in the light of the tailored direction which will be given to the jury if the evidence remains before them. The directions which the judge gave to the jury were not enough to ensure that the conviction was safe notwithstanding the unconvincing nature of the evidence of D and its importance to the case against P1.
P2's evidence:
The conclusion regarding the requirement for a section 125 assessment in this case was compounded by the treatment of P2's evidence. The treatment of the evidence was not satisfactory and no direction was given to the jury regarding it. In these circumstances a judge reflecting on the matter under section 125 would have been driven to find that it may render a conviction unsafe..
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
