Gastall, R. v

A prosecutor’s continuing disclosure duty extends only to material capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused’s case on the issues actually raised. In a self-defence case, material unknown to the accused at the time will ordinarily be incapable of assisting proof of that accused’s honestly held belief.

The reasonableness of a claimed belief may bear on whether it was genuinely held, but material concerning police planning, intelligence or other persons’ previous convictions will not assist where it adds nothing relevant to the accused’s own perception of the immediate events. The jury must assess self-defence by reference to the circumstances as the accused honestly believed them to be, and then the reasonableness of the force used in those circumstances.

The applicant was convicted at Canterbury Crown Court of violent disorder arising from confrontations between rival demonstrators in Dover. He admitted throwing stones but relied on self-defence and defence of others, saying that he feared violent right-wing demonstrators and inadequate police protection.

Before trial, the defence sought further unused material under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, including police operational material, intelligence and information about demonstrators’ previous convictions. The applications were refused. The jury received CCTV evidence, admissions concerning violence by right-wing demonstrators, and the applicant’s evidence. The sole issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the refusal of further disclosure rendered the conviction unsafe.

1. The application for leave to appeal was refused. There was no arguable ground for challenging the safety of the conviction.
2. The continuing disclosure duty under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is confined to unused material which might reasonably undermine the prosecution case or assist the accused’s case. Its scope must be assessed by reference to the actual issues at trial.
3. Here, the prosecution accepted that some right-wing demonstrators had engaged in serious violence and that missiles were thrown. The jury had CCTV footage, admissions and other evidence showing that violence. Further material concerning police planning, intelligence about anticipated violence, or demonstrators’ previous convictions could not undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence on the facts.
4. The material sought was unknown to the applicant when he threw the stones. It therefore could not affect his state of mind. The material was also incapable of showing that his asserted beliefs were genuine by supplying objective support, because it added nothing relevant to his perception of the immediate confrontation. Police planning did not assist the jury’s distinct inquiry into whether the applicant honestly believed that the police presence then available would protect him and others.
5. Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 76 confirms that self-defence is assessed by reference to the circumstances as the accused honestly believed them to be. Although the reasonableness of a belief may assist in deciding whether it was genuinely held, an honestly held mistaken belief may be relied upon. The jury had been correctly directed first to consider whether the applicant might honestly have believed defensive force necessary, and then whether the type and amount of force were reasonable in those believed circumstances.
6. The disclosure rulings were plainly correct. The trial was fair, the jury were properly directed, and they were entitled to reject self-defence and convict.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the applicant’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: on 4 August 2017, the applicant was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment. Pre-trial applications for further disclosure were refused.