Danyal Aziz v R

A fair-trial complaint based on the loss of expert evidence is arguable where an existing expert report identifies a potentially material answer to central prosecution evidence. The accused must still show how the evidence was lost and why the case-management decisions made the trial unfair.

A disclosure order subject to conditions does not create an unconditional entitlement to further data. A judge may refuse an adjournment or change of representation where circumstances have not materially changed and the proposed course would not solve the evidential problem without derailing the trial. A prosecutor addressing the jury against an unrepresented defendant must comply with Crim PR 25.9. Reliance on EU-law effectiveness principles was barred by paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018. Sentencing guideline levels at the highest scale are not mathematical, and totality may require a substantial adjustment for linked offences.

Following a trial at Birmingham Crown Court, Danyal Aziz was convicted of conspiracies and possession offences involving class A drugs, firearms and ammunition, together with concealing criminal property. He was sentenced to 33 years. The prosecution case on most counts relied substantially on EncroChat data.

The defence sought further EncroChat data for analysis by Dr Campbell. Disclosure was ordered subject to conditions, but disputes over those conditions, funding and expert instructions continued. Applications to adjourn were refused. Dr Campbell was not called, and Mr Aziz represented himself after dis-instructing his legal team.

He renewed applications for leave to appeal against conviction, sought to add a ground based on Criminal proceedings against MN (Case C-670/220), and challenged the refusal of new representation, the prosecution closing speech and the assistance provided to him as a litigant in person. He also challenged his sentence and sought an extension of time. The central questions were whether the conviction was arguably unsafe and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Conviction. Leave to appeal was granted only on grounds 2 and 5. Grounds 1 and 3 were not arguable. The disclosure order made on 8 November was subject to the prosecution’s conditions, and the later refusal to adjourn did not involve a material change in circumstances. The court was not persuaded that the prosecution was at fault or that the defence had been prevented from making the appropriate application at the appropriate time.
2. The overarching fair-trial complaint was nevertheless arguable. Dr Campbell’s initial report identified a possible challenge to the reliability and attribution of the EncroChat evidence. The subsequent events left Mr Aziz unable to advance that potential answer through expert evidence. That was sufficient to justify leave on ground 2, without determining that the conviction was unsafe.
3. The proposed ground based on Criminal proceedings against MN and its interpretation of Article 14(7) of Directive 2014/41 was rejected. Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 to the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 provided a complete answer to reliance on EU-law general principles during the relevant period. The proposed reliance on Article 6 of the ECHR was, in substance, a restatement of the existing fair-trial ground and did not create an arguable separate ground.
4. The refusal to permit a change of representation was not arguably outside the trial judge’s discretion. It was reasonably open to the judge to view the dis-instruction of the legal team as an attempt to manipulate the proceedings and to conclude that a new team would not resolve the expert-funding problem without a lengthy adjournment and discharge of the jury. Ground 6 also failed. Mr Aziz had not provided evidence identifying what materials were missing, when they were sought, or how any deficiency affected his ability to conduct the defence.
5. The prosecution accepted that it had not applied for permission to make final representations as required by Crim PR 25.9. The court could not determine what the result of a proper application would have been, but the prosecution had referred in closing to material contained in a skeleton argument which was not evidence before the jury. Leave was therefore granted on ground 5.
6. Sentence. The quantity finding disclosed no error, and even the lower quantity advanced by the defence justified substantially more than 20 years for the drugs offences. The court applied the principle that the highest sentencing levels for large-scale class A drug dealing are not mathematical, as explained in R v Johnson [2022] EWCA Crim 1575. A notional 17-year sentence for the firearms offences was not excessive given the number and nature of the weapons and their connection with organised criminal activity. Its reduction to 9 years for totality made the aggregate 33-year sentence not manifestly excessive. The extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused. The applications were dismissed.

• Birmingham Crown Court: following trial before HHJ Henderson, Mr Aziz was convicted and sentenced to 33 years.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2025] EWCA Crim 605): renewed applications determined. Leave to appeal conviction was granted on grounds 2 and 5 only; leave was refused on the remaining conviction grounds and on sentence. The applications were dismissed.