[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Mulcahy, R v [2000] EWCA Crim 106 (26 October 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/106.html Cite as: [2000] EWCA Crim 106

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2
		Thursday 26th October 2000

1. LORD JUSTICE MANTELL: On 18th November 1995 Miss Lawson and Mr Pulling were working in a shop in Webbs Road, Clapham. All of a sudden at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon two men with partially masked faces came in, one of them holding a knife. A robbery followed. Something like £1,700 in cash was taken and cheques worth £217. On 8th December, that is less than a month later, the appellant in this case, Richard Lee Mulcahy was arrested in Clapham. He was asked about his whereabouts on the day in question. He offered an alibi.
2. Miss Lawson had given a description of one of the two men who came into the shop. In that description she included the fact that the man had a ruddy complexion and a gold tooth. She later attended an identification parade and picked out this appellant. She said: "I think number 4 is the one." On that material the appellant was charged and came to trial in August 1996 at Kingston Crown Court where ultimately he was convicted. He sought leave to appeal out of time. An extension of time was refused and the full court presided over by the then Lord Chief Justice gave its opinion that regardless of the fact that the application was made out of time there appeared to the court, at that date, to be no merit in the appeal.
3. Subsequently, however, a fingerprint found on a bin liner at the shop has been compared with that of another man, whose name it is not necessary for this court to mention, and found to correspond. That man, as it happens, fits the description given by Miss Lawson following the offence. He too has a gold tooth and on the side of the mouth described by Miss Lawson whereas the gold tooth of this appellant is not.
4. In those circumstances the matter was referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in December 1997. The Commission considered all the available evidence and came to the following conclusion:

"In the view of the Commission had it been known at the time that a fingerprint on a bin liner left by the robbers at the scene belonged to another man fitting the description of the witness with a criminal record and living close by then it is doubtful that Mr Mulcahy would have been prosecuted."

5. We respectfully agree.
6. The matter has now been referred back to this court. We are invited to say that in light of the further evidence it can no longer be said that the conviction of this appellant is safe. We so find. The conviction is quashed.