R v Wishart 2025
In March 2004, W, along with others, participated in the theft of gold bars worth £1.5 million from Johnson Matthey plc, under alleged duress from a person identified as "C". W was stopped and arrested by the Metropolitan Police Service's Flying Squad, along with firearms recovered from the vehicle.
W originally pleaded guilty to theft and firearms offences in 2005, but sought to apply for leave to appeal 16 years later, citing grounds of police misconduct and withheld evidence of duress and entrapment. Applications to adduce fresh evidence principally relied on a retired Detective Constable's claims of police corruption and a whistleblowing statement regarding alleged non-disclosure to protect "C". W also based additional submissions on the involvement of a journalist, G, who provided W with potentially relevant police documents obtained in 2021.
The defence argued that the fresh evidence demonstrated improperly withheld materials that supported defences of duress and entrapment and rendered the trial unfair. W further submitted that the delay in seeking leave to appeal was justified as the alleged misconduct was only uncovered in 2021, long after the trial.
The prosecution contended that the Detective Constable's assertions were speculative, based on hearsay and gossip, and lacked any evidential foundation or connection to W's decision to plead guilty. The prosecution maintained that no evidence showed the alleged non-disclosure would have influenced the trial's outcome or that the defences of duress and entrapment would have succeeded.
Held
Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.
The court found the fresh evidence inadmissible under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, as it was predominantly hearsay, speculation, and opinion. Given the officer's limited role in Operation Rowlock and lack of involvement in planning or policy decisions, the court deemed his assertions regarding withheld evidence to lack credibility and substantive support. The court highlighted that the defences of duress and entrapment had been assessed during the trial, and no new evidence undermined the trial judge's findings that there was no entrapment and that W had opportunities to withdraw. The court held that the fresh evidence, even if admissible and believed, would not provide grounds to allow the appeal, as it failed to undermine the trial's key findings or rulings on entrapment and duress. The court further found that the conviction was not rendered unsafe, and the applications for leave to appeal and extension of time were dismissed.
Reproduced with permission of Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
