R v Henderson Domingo
[2024] EWCA Crim 587
R v Lewis Hutchinson
28 August 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 997
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of murder. The police used a co-defendant as a witness, but made some mistakes. The court said the mistakes didn't affect the verdict because the jury was warned and there was enough other evidence. The sentence mostly stayed the same.
Key Facts
- •Lewis Hutchinson convicted of murder and conspiracy to rob.
- •Co-defendant Christopher Pycroft became a prosecution witness.
- •Concerns raised about the prosecution's handling of Pycroft's involvement and the process of securing his testimony.
- •Pycroft initially faced murder and conspiracy charges, then pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob in exchange for testimony against Hutchinson.
- •The prosecution's actions were criticized for potential procedural irregularities and lack of transparency.
- •Hutchinson's appeal concerned the prosecution's departure from proper procedure in calling Pycroft as a witness.
Legal Principles
Proper procedure when calling an accomplice as a prosecution witness.
R v Pipe (1967) 51 Cr App R 17
Public interest considerations in granting immunity or reducing sentence for assisting offenders.
R v Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290; [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 5, Attorney General's statement (8 November 1981), Sections 71 and 72 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (SOCPA), Section 74 of the Sentencing Act 2020
Crown Prosecutor's Code and the 'Full Code Test'.
Code for Crown Prosecutors
Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) power to exclude evidence.
Section 78 of PACE
Rules on disclosure of evidence.
Section 8 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996
Sentencing for murder involving firearms and robbery.
R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Although the prosecution made numerous errors, these were rectified before Pycroft testified. The judge gave appropriate directions to the jury regarding Pycroft's credibility, and there was sufficient other evidence to support the conviction.
Renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused (except for correction of minimum term).
The minimum term of the life sentence was not considered excessive. The errors in the sentencing were limited to the calculation of the minimum term, not the sentence itself.