Appeal judge raps prosecutors after Peterborough murder

A Court of Appeal judge has criticised prosecutors over a plea “agreement” made with a man arrested after the killing of a drug dealer.

Lady Justice Andrews said “failings” by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) following the death of Mihai Dobre in Peterborough in April 2022 were a “matter for serious concern”.

The judge has outlined concerns in a written ruling after another man, convicted of murdering Mr Dobre, failed in an appeal bid.

Lawyers representing Lewis Hutchinson, of Dogsthorpe, Peterborough, had argued that his conviction was unsafe because prosecutors caused “unfairness” by “granting immunity” to “accomplice” Christopher Pycroft on a “nod and a wink”.

Mr Dobre, 29, of Oundle Road, Peterborough, died after being shot in the Paston area of Peterborough.

Hutchinson, who is in his early 30s, was given a mandatory life sentence with a minimum jail term of nearly 30 years, in June after being found guilty of murder and conspiracy to rob following an earlier trial at Peterborough Crown Court.

Pycroft, who is in his early 40s and of Crabtree, Peterborough, had admitted conspiracy to rob and been given a five year, three month jail term.

Lady Justice Andrews said Mr Dobre had driven to a “rendezvous” with a “prospective customer”.

Pycroft and Hutchinson had approached, Mr Dobre had sensed “something was amiss”, and started to drive off.

Hutchinson had fired a shotgun – he said the gun had gone off accidentally- and entered not guilty pleas.

Mr Dobre was hit in the head and died in hospital.

Lady Justice Andrews, and two other appeal judges, dismissed Hutchinson’s challenge at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in July.

She has now explained the appeal panel’s reasoning in a written ruling published online.

The judge said “failings by the prosecution” were “a matter for serious concern”.

She said a message had been conveyed that, if Pycroft gave evidence against Hutchinson, there was a “very good chance” a murder charge would be dropped.

Lady Justice Andrews explained how, in September 2022, Pycroft’s solicitors had asked the CPS whether, if Pycroft admitted “conspiracy to rob” and was willing to give evidence against Hutchinson in a murder trial, prosecutors would “consider not proceeding” with a murder charge.

Prosecutors had entered into an agreement with Pycroft in November 2022 – and Pycroft had admitted conspiracy to rob at a court hearing in December 2022.

Lady Justice Andrews indicated that Hutchinson’s lawyers had not inspected the agreement until his trial began in January 2023.

A prosecution barrister had subsequently told the trial judge that a decision had been made to “offer no evidence against Pycroft on the charge of murder”.

Lady Justice Andrews said the trial judge had given jurors a direction about “potential unreliability” of Pycroft’s evidence.

She said jurors had been “reminded” that, “until after the trial began”, Pycroft “was uncertain” as to whether he would be prosecuted for murder and that he had an “incentive to please those who would make that decision”.

Hutchinson’s lawyers said prosecutors had postponed deciding what to do about a murder charge until after Pycroft had given evidence at Hutchinson’s trial.

They complained that taking a statement from Pycroft when he was still under the “shadow of prosecution for murder” meant he had a “powerful incentive” to give an account “implicating” Hutchinson and “exonerating himself”.

Lady Justice Andrews said a barrister instructed by the CPS had, “realistically accepted that a catalogue of errors was made by the prosecution for which there was no excuse”.

But the barrister had argued that “procedural irregularities” were “put right” before Pycroft gave evidence.

“The prosecution wrongly believed it could defer taking a decision on the acceptability of Pycroft’s guilty plea to the lesser charge of conspiracy to rob until after it knew whether Pycroft’s evidence had helped to secure (Hutchinson’s) conviction for murder,” said Lady Justice Andrews.

“The clear message being conveyed to Pycroft was that if he gave evidence against (Hutchinson), there was a very good chance that the prosecution would drop the murder charge against him.”

The judge said it was “wholly impermissible” for prosecutors to adopt a “wait and see” position.

She added: “On the face of it, the decision to discontinue the prosecution (and to give the undertaking) appears more pragmatic than principled.”

Nevertheless, Lady Justice Andrews said the trial judge had made jurors “well aware” of the incentives Pycroft “had to lie” and they could assess his “credibility”.

She said Hutchinson’s lawyers had been in a position to cross-examine him.

Lady Justice Andrews said appeal judges had concluded that Hutchinson’s conviction was “undoubtedly safe”.