Furniss, R. v

A renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction will be refused where none of the proposed grounds is arguable or casts doubt on the safety of the conviction. Speculation does not establish a failure of disclosure. A public interest immunity ruling is unnecessary where no material satisfies the disclosure test.

A jury-verdict procedure creates no material irregularity where it complies with the applicable practice direction and produces unambiguous verdicts without objection from jurors. Proposed fresh evidence must appear capable of affording a ground for allowing the appeal; evidence consistent with the prosecution case does not meet that criterion.

The applicant was convicted of the murder of Andrew Dosiuk after a trial before Haddon-Cave J. The prosecution case was that the applicant, acting with two co-accused, had been engaged to kill the victim. The applicant denied involvement, although he admitted possessing the murder weapon after the killing.

Leave to appeal on grounds drafted by counsel was refused by a single judge. The applicant later obtained an order treating his notice abandoning the appeal as a nullity. Acting in person, he then advanced ten revised grounds. They alleged disclosure failures, irregularities in the jury process, inadmissible expert evidence, errors in the summing-up, fresh evidence, and deficiencies in his former representatives' conduct.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused. None of the ten grounds was arguable and none cast doubt on the safety of the conviction.
2. The alleged disclosure complaints were speculative. Before Hall gave evidence, the important features of his case had been put to the applicant in cross-examination. The applicant therefore had an opportunity to call rebuttal evidence. There was no basis for asserting that the prosecution had withheld information.
3. The trial judge had correctly concluded, after hearing material in camera, that no material either assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution case. A public interest immunity ruling arises only where material satisfies the disclosure test. Since no such material existed, no question of withholding it on public interest immunity grounds arose.
4. There was no material irregularity in the handling of the jury notes or the taking of verdicts. The judge was entitled to ask whether further time might enable verdicts on all defendants. The associate's later procedure complied with Part 26Q of the Criminal Practice Direction. The verdict on each defendant was unambiguous and no juror objected.
5. The proposed fresh evidence did not satisfy section 23(2)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. Taken at its highest, it was consistent with the prosecution case of a joint enterprise and could not afford a ground for allowing the appeal. The remaining complaints disclosed no error capable of affecting the conviction's safety.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The full court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) A single judge refused leave to appeal on 20 May 2015. The applicant gave notice abandoning the renewed application, but the full court ordered on 15 November 2018 that the notice be treated as a nullity.
• Trial court Haddon-Cave J convicted the applicant of murder on 10 December 2014. His two co-accused were acquitted.