Christopher More v R

A disclosure failure does not of itself make a conviction unsafe. The court must scrutinise the material and the disclosure process carefully, applying the safeguards for sensitive material and asking whether any non-disclosure could weaken the prosecution case, strengthen the defence, or make the trial unfair overall.

Where a defence depends on the accused’s belief that another person was a police informant, the person’s actual status need not be disclosed if it cannot affect that issue. A late-disclosed fact will not render the trial unfair where it is admitted before speeches and summing up, can be used effectively by the defence, and further material would add nothing material.

Christopher More v R concerned convictions at Chester Crown Court for the murder of Brian Waters and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Mr More maintained that he had attended the scene while investigating a possible documentary about criminal activity and a rogue police informant. He denied involvement in the assault and murder.

His appeal challenged the fairness of the summing up and the prosecution’s disclosure. Material relating to the circulation of stolen National Crime Squad papers and John Wilson’s concern that criminals regarded him as an informant was disclosed late at trial. Further related material was disclosed during the appeal after reviews directed by the court.

The central questions were whether the disclosure process required special counsel or further directions, and whether the late disclosure or summing up made the convictions unsafe.

1. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The summing up was fair when read as a whole. The judge accurately put the respective cases, reminded the jury that they alone decided the facts, and sufficiently explained the defence case. The challenged comments did not add to the prosecution case or make the convictions unsafe.

2. The court applied the disclosure approach in R v H and others [2004] UKHL 3. It scrutinised the sensitive material, the late disclosures and the ex parte on-notice process with particular care. The late disclosure of agreed fact 145 caused serious concern about the integrity of the process. The Operation Picking material should have been reviewed for relevance once its connection with the stolen papers was apparent.

3. Nevertheless, neither special counsel nor a further hearing was necessary. The court had reviewed the relevant unredacted material, directed limited further disclosure, and concluded that nothing further would weaken the prosecution case or strengthen the defence. The procedure remained compatible with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

4. The relevant issue was Mr More’s belief that Wilson was an informant, rather than Wilson’s actual status. Disclosure of that status was not ordered because it could not affect the issue to be decided and would not assist the defence or undermine the prosecution case. The court also found no basis for concluding that the prosecution had deliberately misled the defence about the scope of an earlier review.

5. The prosecution had been entitled to challenge Mr More’s asserted belief in cross-examination. Agreed fact 145 was disclosed too late, but it was admitted before closing speeches and the summing up. The defence made substantial use of it before the jury. The later 2023 material would have added nothing material to that agreed fact. The late disclosures therefore did not make either conviction unsafe.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Leave to appeal was granted because the disclosure process required careful review. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and made no further disclosure directions.

2. Crown Court at Chester. On 9 December 2021, Mr More was convicted of murder and conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. On 10 December 2021, he received life imprisonment for murder with a 24-year minimum term, and a concurrent 14-year sentence for conspiracy.