Rehman, R. v

For disclosure purposes, material must be assessed against the prosecution case and the defence case actually advanced during the proceedings. Material which neither undermines the prosecution case nor assists that defence does not meet the statutory disclosure test. This remains so where the defendant later seeks to advance a different case which is inconsistent with his evidence and is factually incorrect. An application for an extension of time to appeal should be refused where the proposed grounds are unarguable and the prospective appeal has no prospect of success.

The applicant was convicted at Preston Crown Court of conspiracy to handle stolen motor vehicles and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He applied out of time for leave to appeal against conviction, alleging police non-disclosure. The alleged material came to light through information he gave to a probation officer after conviction. The prosecution disputed that it met the disclosure test and relied on its inconsistency with the defence advanced at trial. The Court of Appeal considered whether there was any arguable basis for extending time and pursuing an appeal.

1. Applications refused. The Court refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction.
2. The Court accepted that the alleged material did not satisfy the disclosure test under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It neither undermined the prosecution case nor assisted the defence case advanced in interview, in the defence statement or at trial. The material was inconsistent with, and contradictory of, the applicant’s denial of knowledge that stolen vehicles were passing through the unit.
3. The Court treated the applicant’s later account with caution. The matters came to light only because he mentioned them after conviction, having not relied on them earlier. The case he then wished to advance contradicted the case presented at trial and was itself based on factually incorrect assertions.
4. There was evidence from which the jury could be satisfied that the applicant was a party to the conspiracy. No criticism could be made of the judge’s directions or of the conduct of the trial. The proposed grounds were therefore unarguable, and an appeal against conviction had no prospect of success.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2020] EWCA Crim 1504 — applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against conviction refused.
• Preston Crown Court: the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to handle stolen motor vehicles on 17 May 2019 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on 23 September 2019.