Taft, R v

Where digital material has been disclosed, a prosecutor does not breach a continuing disclosure duty by failing to identify particular footage unless it is reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused’s actual case. The court did not determine wider issues arising from large volumes of digital material.

Fresh material and a later acquittal of another person will not render convictions unsafe where they do not answer the compelling circumstantial evidence against each applicant. A summing-up does not withdraw an issue from the jury where, read fairly and in context, it leaves that issue for the jury’s assessment.

The applicants were convicted after a three-month trial at the Crown Court at Stoke on Trent of conspiracies to make threats to kill and to cause explosions. Taft received a total of 16 years’ imprisonment and Leslie a total of 14 years.

About three years later, they sought extensions of time and leave to appeal. They relied principally on CCTV footage showing David Hughes at Taft’s farm before the bombings, alleged disclosure failures, and the later acquittal of Jason Buckley. Leslie also contended that the trial judge had effectively withdrawn Buckley’s possible guilt from the jury.

The central question was whether those matters disclosed any arguable basis on which either conviction was unsafe.

1. The court refused the renewed applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal. It declined to admit the fresh evidence of Taft’s trial counsel. Neither applicant had shown an arguable ground that his convictions were unsafe.

2. Although the court proceeded, for present purposes, on the assumption that the prosecution should have reviewed all of the hard drive or supplied its cloned copy much earlier, there was no relevant disclosure failure. A continuing duty extended only to material not already disclosed which was reasonably capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused’s case. The footage merely showed Hughes, an employee living and working at the farm, carrying items and briefly speaking with Taft. It did not reasonably undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence case then advanced.

3. The court expressly declined to decide wider issues about disclosure of large volumes of digital material. It held that the footage could not plausibly have started a line of inquiry which would or might have become part of the defence. The later attempt to implicate Hughes was irreconcilable with Taft’s trial case, including his reliance on Hughes as an alibi witness.

4. The summing-up did not withdraw from the jury the possibility that someone other than Buckley was the bomber. Read in its trial context, the judge fairly summarised the parties’ overall positions while leaving the issue to the jury. In any event, the prosecution case against Leslie consisted of many circumstantial strands and did not depend on Buckley’s conviction.

5. The court considered the rule concerning previous acquittals, referring to Hui Chai-Hing v R [1992] 1 AC 34, but did not need to decide admissibility conclusively. The narrow exception concerning a witness’s credibility, exemplified by R v Hay (1983) 77 Cr App R 70, was not engaged. Buckley’s acquittal did not answer the compelling evidence against either applicant.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for long extensions of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused.

• Crown Court at Stoke on Trent: following a jury trial, Taft and Leslie were convicted of conspiracy to make threats to kill and conspiracy to cause an explosion. They were sentenced respectively to total terms of 16 and 14 years’ imprisonment.