R v Mullen
A conviction was quashed as unsafe because the defendant had been brought to the UK by unlawful collusion between British and foreign authorities.
Facts
Nicholas Mullen was convicted in 1990 of conspiring to cause explosions, after being found with explosives intended for IRA bombings. He had been deported from Zimbabwe to the UK in 1989 in circumstances that, it later emerged, had been arranged between the British and Zimbabwean authorities in deliberate breach of Zimbabwean law and of his right to consult a lawyer, in order to bypass extradition proceedings. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his conviction to the Court of Appeal.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction as unsafe, even though there was no doubt about his guilt. Rose LJ said that the British authorities had been involved in procuring Mr Mullen's deportation by unlawful means, in degradation of the lawful process, and that if the trial court had known the facts, it would have stayed the prosecution as an abuse of process under the principle in R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett. A conviction can be unsafe not only because of doubts about guilt, but also where the prosecution should never have taken place because of an abuse of process.
Related cases on criminal justice, evidence and appeals
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29
- 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 Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Cowan [1996] QB 373
- R v Davis [2008] UKHL 36, [2008] 1 AC 1128
- R v Dunlop [2006] EWCA Crim 1354, [2007] 1 WLR 1657
Studying english legal system? 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.
