David Tucker

David Tucker was convicted of robbery of a victim in the victim’s home. There was some identification evidence but the main evidence came from Tucker’s co-accused who had pled guilty to a lesser offence (theft). Tucker denied being present and gave an alibi. On appeal evidence was provided to support the contention that the co-accused may have had for accusing Tucker (specifically revenge for Tucker’s involvement in a different police investigation of the co-accused). Although the police had previously denied that Tucker had been asked to go undercover and provide information on Milson and this denial was correct, it was not the whole story. Tucker had given police some limited information about Milsom’s drug dealing. But this was never disclosed to the defence, which meant the defence decided not the pursue a line by which they might suggest Milsom’s motive to lie. This failure of disclosure was described as a “significant irregularity” by the Court of Appeal, and the conviction was quashed.