|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Miell, R v  EWCA Crim 3130 (21 December 2007)
Cite as:  WLR 627,  1 Cr App Rep 23,  EWCA Crim 3130,  1 Cr App R 23,  1 WLR 627
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report:  1 WLR 627] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPLICATION UNDER S76 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT
2003 BY THE CPS (OXFORD)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BLAKE
|- and -
|Richard Andrew Miell (now known as Ricky Sanjuliano)
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr N.P. Moore for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 3rd December 2007
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ:
The murder trial.
Confessions to committing the murder.
The retraction of the confessions
"the two people that had visited me weekly for around a year, that had adopted me as their spiritual mum and dad, whom had offered for me to stay with them, who had brought a car for me – I got him to give me a lift into the nearest town and I never saw them again"
He had known that after making his voluntary confession they would pay him increased attention but in the last six months of his imprisonment he had shown a total disregard for the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"…it was all one very very complex game which I hate to say, ended the way I wanted it to end, I got my parole early, I didn't get any other consequences from, going to court, admitting to a confession I knew there would, you know I knew there may be extra years on top but I was so confident in my conviction and the game I was playing and the power and manipulation I had that I was actually right in the sense that I didn't receive any further time to my sentence."
"I was very careful in that I spoke to the counsellor, I spoke to the Jehovah Witness, I was very careful in how I handled it and made sure that my statement was believable, I had to, I had to do that, however, because it was a game I did give indications throughout that statement that it was a lie that I was saying because I wanted to see how much power I had and wanted to see if anyone at any point would say well actually these are the given facts of the case, you're contradicting those, but no-one picked up on it, it was a power play and it worked for me, and it was, you know, I thought long and hard and planned what I was going to say and made sure there was many details that sounded believable, some unbelievable in the sense that, I see your colleague frown, the fact is that, the forensic evidence says unequivocally that it was 2 separate knives used to stab Stephen, I went in and give a voluntary confession saying that I used the same knife, that it was the same knife that committed (laughs) both injuries, one is true and one is false I mean, I beg to differ (laughs) with the forensic evidence that it, that that is wrong and I was right, so it was all planned out and carefully thought through before I gave the statement."
The statutory requirements
"76. Application to Court of Appeal
(1) A prosecutor may apply to the Court of Appeal for an order-
(a) quashing a person's acquittal in proceedings within section 75(1), and
(b) ordering him to be retried for the qualifying offence.
77. Determination by the Court of Appeal
(1) On an application under section 76(1), the Court of Appeal-
(a) if satisfied that the requirements of sections 78 and 79 are met, must make the order applied for;
(b) otherwise, must dismiss the application.
78. New and compelling evidence
(1) The requirements of this section are met if there is new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence.
(2) Evidence is new if it was not adduced in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted (nor, if those were appeal proceedings, in earlier proceedings to which the appeal related).
(3) Evidence is compelling if-
(a) it is reliable,
(b) it is substantial, and
(c) in the context of the outstanding issues, it appears highly probative of the case against the acquitted person.
(4) The outstanding issues are the issues in dispute in the proceedings in which the person was acquitted and, if those were appeal proceedings, any other issues remaining in dispute from earlier proceedings to which the appeal related.
(5) For the purposes of this section, it is irrelevant whether any evidence would have been admissible in earlier proceedings against the acquitted person.
79. Interests of justice
(1) The requirements of this section are met if in all the circumstances it is in the interests of justice for the court to make order under section 77.
(2) That question is to be determined having regard in particular to-
(a) whether existing circumstances make a fair trial unlikely;
(b) for the purposes of that question and otherwise, the length of time since the qualifying offence was allegedly committed;
(c) whether it is likely that the new evidence would have been adduced in the earlier proceedings against the acquitted person but for a failure by an officer or by a prosecutor to act with due diligence or expedition;
(d) whether, since those proceedings or, if later, since the commencement of this Part, any officer or prosecutor has failed to act with due diligence or expedition."
Reliability of the new evidence
"(3) In any proceedings where evidence is admissible of the fact that the accused has committed an offence…if the accused is proved to have been convicted of the offence…he shall be taken to have committed the offence unless the contrary is proved"