Danyal Aziz v R

In a joint criminal trial, an adjournment is not required merely because a defendant seeks further expert analysis. The court must assess the nature of the defence, the evidence already available, the likely value of further work, the history of delay and the effect on the trial. Where the proposed evidence would add no material assistance and its claimed value is speculative, refusal to adjourn may be justified. In a multi-handed trial, the prosecution may refer to an unrepresented defendant where that is necessary to explain the evidence against represented co-defendants. The prosecution should raise the proposed scope of such references with the judge. Any excessive emphasis must then be assessed for its effect on the safety of the conviction.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of drug conspiracy, firearms, ammunition and criminal-property offences and sentenced to 33 years’ imprisonment. This court granted limited leave to appeal against conviction on two grounds: refusal on 17 April 2023 to adjourn so that further expert evidence concerning Encrochat material could be prepared, and the prosecution’s closing address after the appellant dismissed his legal team.

The appellant argued that the absence of the further expert report made the trial unfair and that the closing address impermissibly focused on his case while he was unrepresented. The central questions were whether the refusal to adjourn undermined trial fairness or conviction safety and whether the closing address had that effect.

1. Appeal dismissed. Neither ground caused the court to doubt the safety of the convictions.
2. The appellant’s defence statement principally challenged the lawfulness and admissibility of Encrochat evidence. He gave no particulars of which messages he denied sending or receiving and accepted most of the other prosecution evidence. Those matters were relevant to assessing the assistance that further expert work could provide.
3. By April 2023 the defence had reports addressing the Lushmace and KneeTown data. The expert evidence identified missing counterpart messages and possible reliability issues, but also accepted that external evidence could test accuracy and that the absence of a counterpart did not itself make a message unreliable. The strength of the attribution evidence and the results already obtained meant that the value of examining ten further data packages was speculative.
4. In those circumstances, the trial judge was justified in concluding that the underlying issue could be established from the work already undertaken. The appellant could have relied on the existing reports or cross-examined the prosecution expert. The decision not to call the defence expert was a matter for the appellant and his legal team and did not make the trial unfair.
5. The prosecution was entitled to make a closing address in the multi-handed trial, but, because the appellant was then unrepresented, it should have raised the proposed references to his position with the judge. The judge could properly have considered that the appellant had been represented for most of the trial and that his withdrawal of legal representation bore the hallmarks of an attempt to manipulate the proceedings.
6. References to the appellant were also necessary to explain the evidence against the represented co-defendants, given his alleged leading role. Although some passages could have said less, the address did not give his alleged involvement unfair prominence. The convictions therefore remained safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): limited leave to appeal against conviction was granted on two grounds in [2025] EWCA Crim 605. The present appeal was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: the appellant was convicted on 1 June 2023 and sentenced on 13 October 2023 to a total of 33 years’ imprisonment.