Skip to main content

Crime: Rape

Volume 687: debated on Tuesday 28 November 2006

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why, and on what advice, the Attorney-General sought in 2001 on appeal to increase the sentence originally imposed on Warren Blackwell in 1999. [HL1]

The relevant case file was destroyed in August 2003 in accordance with routine records management practice. The decision to refer was in fact taken before March 2001 by the then Solicitor-General. From the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it is clear that his reason for referring was a belief that, on the facts alleged and found by the jury, the sentence imposed was unduly lenient—a proposition with which the Court of Appeal agreed.

The position on unduly lenient sentence referrals generally is that the law officers’ consideration of cases is predicated on the basis that the conviction is safe. Law officers take into account the facts and circumstances of the case as it was put in the Crown Court and receive advice on sentence from lawyers involved in the prosecution. Advice on sentence is also received from experienced specialist barristers not previously involved in the case, as well as from lawyers in our own department. A case may not be referred to the Court of Appeal unless a law officer is satisfied that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient—that is to say that it fell outside the scope of what a judge could reasonably have passed in the case.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Crown Prosecution Service intends to review the arrangements for the handling of disclosure issues in rape cases following the reports into Warren Blackwell and Leslie Warren by the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [HL2]

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is carefully considering the implications of these two cases. It is accepted that certain decisions made by Crown prosecutors were incorrect. Guidance for CPS staff will be issued.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will review the rules that allow accusers in rape trials to prevent evidence relevant under disclosure rules from being drawn to the attention of lawyers for the defence. [HL3]

There are no rules in legislation or guidance to be followed by prosecutors that allow complainants to prevent material satisfying the tests for disclosure in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 from being brought to the attention of the defence, unless the material is sensitive in nature, in that its disclosure would create a real risk of serious prejudice to an important public interest. In such cases, the material would have to be put before a judge, to determine whether it was necessary to disclose the material to the accused, in order for the accused to have a fair trial.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the relevant background documentation disclosing the multiple identities and history of false accusations made by the accused in the Warren Blackwell case were made available to (a) the defence at the time of the original trial and conviction in October 1999; and (b) the Attorney-General at the time of his request on appeal for an increase in sentence in 2001. [HL4]

At the time of the original trial, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was aware of only one alias. This related to the previous convictions that the reviewing Crown prosecutor decided incorrectly were not relevant for the purposes of disclosure.

Since then, it has been discovered that the complainant has used several identities and made a number of false allegations. The CPS was not aware of this at the time of the trial or the request on appeal for an increase in sentence and, therefore, the information could not have been disclosed. None of this information was known to the Attorney-General's Office at the time of the decision to seek a review of the sentence.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, prior to the appeal hearing at which the Attorney-General sought to increase the prison sentence for rape imposed on Warren Blackwell, he had been made aware of (a) the eight different identities of the accuser over 17 years; (b) the accuser’s conviction for robbery in 1986; (c) the accuser’s conviction for theft in 1989; (d) the accuser's false accusations of sexual assault by her father in 1989; (e) the accuser's false accusations of rape against a boy in 1983; (f) the accuser's false accusations of violent sexual assault in a police station in 1988; (g) the accuser's false accusations of violent assault from behind with a knife in March 2000; and (h) the accuser's false accusations of violent sexual assault from behind with a knife in July 2000. [HL5]

No. None of this information would have been part of the case papers that were sent to the then Solicitor-General who made the application to increase the sentence and he would not, therefore, have been made aware of this material.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, following the successful application in March 2001 by the Attorney-General for an increase in sentence at an appeal hearing in the case of Warren Blackwell, he was made aware of (a) the accuser's false accusations of rape and sexual assault with a knife from behind in June 2001; and (b) the accuser's use of a new name; and whether the Attorney-General considered reviewing the Warren Blackwell case. [HL6]

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the actions of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the Warren Blackwell case to reveal prison convictions (unrelated to the crime of rape) for robbery and theft by the accused in that case were in line with the CPS duty to ensure the disclosure of relevant material to the defence team; and what guidance is now being given to CPS staff involved in rape prosecutions; and [HL130]

What assessment the Attorney-General has made of the extent to which the guidelines on disclosure were applied in the case of the accuser and the accused during the Warren Blackwell legal proceedings and investigation for the crime of rape. [HL131]

The decisions in relation to disclosure were not in accordance with the existing guidance or, indeed, the spirit of the CPIA. The previous convictions for offences of dishonesty, and other material going to the reliability of the complainant’s evidence, should have been disclosed, although whether it was actually deployed at trial would have been a matter for the defence.

The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) was in force at the time of this investigation and the subsequent proceedings. It then required the prosecution to make primary disclosure to the accused of any material that, in the prosecutor's opinion, might undermine the prosecution case. This test was subjective and based on the opinion of the individual Crown prosecutor, but it was supplemented by guidance for police officers and prosecutors. The guidance gave examples of potentially undermining material, including previous convictions or cautions of a witness, any other information that cast doubt on the reliability of a witness, or evidence of a motivation for making false allegations. The guidance stressed that previous convictions for offences of dishonesty would normally be relevant to a witness’s credibility and should therefore be disclosed.

On 8 September 1999 (Warren Blackwell was convicted on 7 October 1999, a month later), a special CPS policy circular stipulated that all previous convictions of prosecution witnesses had to be disclosed to the accused, save for those relating to minor road traffic matters, regardless of their age or whether they were spent.