ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT WOOLWICH
HH Judge Statman
T20047171
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
MR JUSTICE GOSS
and
MR JUSTICE BOURNE
____________________
KEVIN WISHART |
Applicant |
|
- and - |
||
THE KING |
Respondent |
____________________
Gillian Jones KC and Genevieve Reed (instructed by CPS Appeals and Review Unit) for the respondent
Hearing dates: 9, 10 April 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10:30am on 6 June 2025 by circulation to
the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
Lord Justice Holroyde:
Summary of the facts:
The trial:
The applications to this court:
The grounds of appeal:
The directions hearings:
"… a most unsatisfactory document. Whereas the statement of December 2018 was brief and inadequate, this document is of inordinate length and contains much which can be of no conceivable relevance to the grounds of appeal."
The substantive hearing:
Mr Williams' evidence:
"DI Smith tapped his nose, which was an action I understood to be used in the MPS to indicate that someone was an informant, or 'snout' on more than one occasion. I never saw an official document confirming that [C] was an informant, however, I was effectively warned in a manner I perceived as 'Don't push it Williams, he is an informant'. In my usual manner I did raise this a couple of times before the trial before I gave up all together, I believe I raised it when there was a relevance for some reason, each time DI Smith would tap his nose to put an end to the conversation. To be clear I am sure he wasn't simply scratching or doing something other than to make a specific gesture for my attention."
The respondent's witnesses:
The submissions:
"(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings."
Analysis:
Conclusion: