R v Ward (Judith)
The conviction of Judith Ward for the M62 coach bombing was quashed because the prosecution and scientists had failed to disclose material evidence, and the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material evidence to the defence.
Facts
Judith Ward was convicted in 1974 of the murder of 12 people in the IRA bombing of a coach carrying soldiers and their families on the M62 motorway, and of other bombings. The conviction was based on her confessions, which were inconsistent and unreliable, and on scientific evidence. After a referral by the Home Secretary, it emerged that the police, the prosecution and government scientists had failed to disclose to the defence evidence that undermined the scientific case and evidence about her mental condition.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Glidewell LJ said that the prosecution has a duty to disclose to the defence all relevant evidence of help to the accused, which is not limited to evidence which will obviously advance the accused's case, and that the duty extends to forensic scientists who advise the prosecution. The scientists had deliberately withheld material evidence, and the prosecution had failed in its duty of disclosure. The court said that our law does not tolerate a conviction to stand which has been secured in breach of the rules of fair trial. The law of disclosure is now governed by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
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 Chalkley [1998] QB 848
- R v Clark (Sally) [2003] EWCA Crim 1020
- R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267
- R v Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903
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.
