Key Facts
- •Basil Peterkin and Saliah Mehmet were convicted in 1977 of conspiracy to steal (and Mehmet of theft and handling stolen goods).
- •Both appellants died before the appeal.
- •Their convictions were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
- •Appellants were British Rail employees at Bricklayers' Arms Parcel Depot.
- •The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to steal goods in transit (approx. £30,000).
- •The investigating officers (Ridgewell, Ellis, Keeling) were later convicted of similar crimes at the same depot (£364,000 worth of goods).
- •Fresh evidence concerned the dishonesty and potential prejudice of the investigating officers.
- •Peterkin's 1978 appeal was refused; Mehmet did not appeal initially.
- •The Crown did not oppose the appeals.
Legal Principles
Unsafety of convictions due to fresh evidence undermining the credibility of key prosecution witnesses.
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
The standard for quashing convictions based on fresh evidence is whether the convictions are unsafe.
Section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Consideration of the cumulative effect of evidence, particularly in cases with similar patterns of police misconduct.
R v Simmons [2018] EWCA Crim 114; R v Trew, Christie and Griffiths [2019] EWCA Crim 2474; R v Boucher [2020] EWCA Crim 629; R v Geen, Harriott and Davidson [2021] EWCA Crim 1026; and R v Johnson [2021] EWCA Crim 1837
Outcomes
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed.
Fresh evidence demonstrated the dishonesty of the principal prosecution witnesses, rendering the convictions unsafe.