Criminal

Practice extensive publicity possibly rendering retrial unfair test to be appliedR v Stone: CA (Kennedy LJ, Maurice Kay and Hallett JJ): 14 February 2001...Practice extensive publicity possibly rendering retrial unfair test to be appliedR v Stone: CA (Kennedy LJ, Maurice Kay and Hallett JJ): 14 February 2001In October 1998 the appellant was convicted of two offences of murder and one of attempted murder.

After the trial one of the witnesses retracted his evidence.

His appeal against conviction was allowed.

On the question whether a retrial should be ordered, defence counsel submitted that the appellant could not now receive a fair trial owing to the extensive publicity which had been generated by the case.William Clegg QC and Jonathan Ingram (instructed by Derek J Hayward & Co, Chatham) for the appellant; Nigel Sweeney QC and Mark Ellison (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service, Canterbury) for the Crown.

Ian Croxford QC (Kingsley Napley) for the journalist.Held, ordering a retrial, that in deciding whether it was right to order a retrial where there had been extensive publicity of the case the question to be answered was whether, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant would suffer serious prejudice to the extent that no fair trial could be held; that the burden was on the appellant to show that he would suffer such prejudice; that in justice to the victims and the wider community there should be a retrial; and that since the retrial would not be starting until nearly three years after the publicity at the end of the original trial there was no reason to think that a fair trial could not be held.