R v Chalkley
A conviction based on a guilty plea, entered after a ruling admitting evidence obtained by a police trespass, was not unsafe, because the court is concerned with the safety of the conviction, not with disciplining the police.
Facts
The police, who suspected Mr Chalkley of planning a robbery, arrested him on a pretext and entered his house without authority to install a listening device, which recorded conversations about the planned robbery. The trial judge ruled that the recordings were admissible. Mr Chalkley then pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob. He appealed, arguing that the recordings should have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and that his conviction was therefore unsafe.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Auld LJ said that, under the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the only question for the court was whether the conviction was unsafe, and that the court had no power to quash a safe conviction merely because of irregularities at the trial or misconduct by the police. Where a defendant had pleaded guilty, after a ruling on the admissibility of evidence, the conviction would be unsafe only if the ruling left him with no legal option but to plead guilty, which was not the case here, because the evidence had been rightly admitted. The approach was later qualified in R v Mullen, where the court held that a conviction could be unsafe because of an abuse of process, even if the defendant was guilty.
Related cases on appeals and miscarriages of justice
- R (Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2012] 1 AC 48
- R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279
- R v Bentley (Deceased) [2001] 1 Cr App R 21
- R v Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
