R v Adam Courtney-Kasher

Late disclosure does not make a conviction unsafe without identifiable unfairness or prejudice. The applicant must explain how earlier disclosure could have changed the defence. Where material is admitted and its substance is before the jury, timing alone is insufficient. Information about potential witnesses that is disclosed before trial, or that yields neither inculpatory nor exculpatory evidence, likewise does not establish prejudice. Alleged inconsistencies and investigative shortcomings ordinarily remain matters for the jury where they are explored at trial. A renewed application for leave, amendment or an extension of time may be refused where the proposed grounds have no realistic prospect of showing that the conviction is unsafe.

The applicant was convicted at Durham Crown Court of six counts of indecency with a child under section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and three counts of rape under section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. He received a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment, later reduced on a sentence appeal.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal conviction, the applicant renewed the application and sought to amend his grounds and extend time. He relied on late disclosure of messages naming him as the alleged abuser, information about police enquiries with neighbours, evidential inconsistencies and alleged failures to investigate reasonable lines of enquiry. The central issue was whether those matters made the conviction unsafe or provided reasonably arguable grounds of appeal.

The court refused leave to appeal conviction, leave to amend the notice of appeal and the necessary extension of time.

1. Late disclosure. The prosecution accepted that messages in which the complainant named the applicant should have been disclosed earlier. The delay caused no unfairness or prejudice. The defence agreed that the messages should be admitted as facts, and the complainant had already given evidence about naming the applicant to family members and searching for him online. The applicant did not identify how earlier disclosure would have altered the defence or affected the questioning of witnesses.
2. Neighbour enquiries. The defence had been notified six months before trial that police had spoken to five neighbours. The neighbours had provided no inculpatory or exculpatory evidence. Accordingly, the complaint about disclosure did not establish unfairness or prejudice.
3. Evidence and inconsistencies. Discrepancies concerning the bedroom, photographs, witnesses’ recollections and other details were matters for the jury. The jury was entitled to regard them as immaterial and to remain sure of the central allegations. The Court of Appeal would not treat such matters as making the conviction unsafe merely because they could support a different factual assessment.
4. Investigation. The prosecution had a duty to explore all reasonable lines of investigation, whether pointing towards or away from guilt. However, specific requests for witnesses or documents should have been identified in the defence case statement. The alleged investigative shortcomings had also been explored in cross-examination and were part of the factual matrix for the jury.
5. Further grounds. None of the proposed additional grounds had any prospect of success. It was therefore not in the interests of justice to permit amendment or extend time.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 16 February 2024, under [2024] EWCA Crim 256, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal conviction and refused amendment and an extension of time.
2. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 5 September 2023, allowed the applicant’s appeal against sentence, quashed the sentences on three rape counts and substituted concurrent nine-year sentences; the remaining sentences were affirmed.
3. Crown Court at Durham: The applicant was convicted on 15 September 2022 and sentenced on 10 October 2022 to 12 years’ imprisonment.