R v Anthony Reid
[2024] EWCA Crim 308
R v Billy Charles Nash & Anor
9 June 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 654
Court of Appeal
Two brothers were convicted of hurting someone, but the court threw out the case because the police and lawyers messed up badly. They didn't share important information that showed a key witness might have lied, and the judge talked to that witness secretly. The court said this was unfair, so there will be a new trial.
Key Facts
- •Billy Nash (28) and Luke Nash (35) convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861).
- •Incident involved a fight in a pub car park, with the Nash brothers claiming self-defense.
- •Key prosecution witness, Hannah Kuszka, initially gave a statement but later expressed concerns and was deemed unfit to testify.
- •Kuszka's statement was admitted as hearsay evidence under s.116(2)(b) Criminal Justice Act 2003.
- •Significant disclosure failures regarding Kuszka's unreliability emerged during the trial.
- •Defense sought to admit body-worn footage suggesting witness contamination but was refused.
- •The trial judge met Kuszka privately without recording the meeting or informing counsel.
Legal Principles
Disclosure obligations on police, CPS, and prosecution lawyers to disclose material that might undermine the prosecution case or assist the defense.
Section 3, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
Admission of hearsay evidence when a witness is unfit due to a bodily or mental condition.
Section 116(2)(b), Criminal Justice Act 2003
Considerations for discharging a jury under Section 125 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Section 125, Criminal Justice Act 2003
Proper procedure for assessing witness competence, including considering special measures and obtaining independent evidence.
R v Lubemba and JP [2014] EWCA Crim 2064
Outcomes
Appeals allowed; convictions quashed.
Multiple procedural and disclosure failures rendered the trial unfair and created a real risk that the convictions were unsafe.
Retrial ordered.
To remedy the unfairness caused by the errors during the initial trial.