R v Maxwell
Where a conviction is quashed because of serious prosecutorial misconduct, the court must balance the public interest in a retrial against the need to maintain the integrity of the justice system, and may order a retrial.
Facts
Mr Maxwell was convicted of murder, robbery and burglary, after a trial at which the main prosecution witness, a fellow prisoner, gave evidence that Mr Maxwell had confessed to him. It later emerged that the police had committed gross misconduct in relation to the witness, including giving him undisclosed benefits and concealing them, and the witness had lied at the trial. The convictions were quashed, but Mr Maxwell had admitted his involvement in the robbery to others. The question was whether a retrial should be ordered.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the Court of Appeal had been entitled to order a retrial. Lord Dyson said that, in deciding whether to order a retrial after a conviction has been quashed because of misconduct by the prosecution, the court must decide whether a retrial would be an affront to the public conscience, balancing the public interest in the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of serious crimes against the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the justice system. The Court of Appeal had taken account of the misconduct, the seriousness of the offences and the strength of the evidence. Mr Maxwell later pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery at the retrial.
Related cases on prosecution decisions, abuse of process and pre-trial matters
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, [2010] 1 AC 345
- R v Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, [2007] QB 659
- R v Gleeson [2003] EWCA Crim 3357
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134
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.
