The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the death. Such a failure could be a material procedural irregularity. The duty of disclosure on a prosecutor extended also to the prosecutors forensic experts.
A material irregularity which causes a conviction to be quashed is not a mere procedural irregularity and there is no real distinction between a material irregularity which causes a miscarriage of justice and a feature of the trial which causes a conviction to be unsafe: ‘The outcome of the debate as to whether non-disclosure of material is an irregularity within ground (c) or is a feature which can render a conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory under ground (a) has, as it seems to us, no consequence in regard to the result (as opposed to the route) of an appeal. This is because of the proviso. If the court is unable to hold ‘that no miscarriage of justice has actually occurred’ in a case of irregularity then, as in Regina v. Paraskeva, 76 Cr.App.R. 162, the conviction is not ‘safe’. If it does so hold, then the court is effectively saying that the conviction is safe and satisfactory.’
 2 All ER 433,  QB 936, (1992) 94 Cr App Rep 133,  EWCA Crim 1239
England and Wales
Cited – Taylor and Others v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others HL 29-Oct-1998
The defendant had requested the Isle of Man authorities to investigate the part if any taken by the plaintiff in a major fraud. No charges were brought against the plaintiff, but the documents showing suspicion came to be disclosed in the later . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
Cited – Regina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Cited – H, Regina v (Interlocutory application: Disclosure) HL 28-Feb-2007
The trial judge had refused an order requested at a preparatory hearing by the defence for the disclosure of documents held by the prosecutor. The House was now asked whether a right of appeal existed against such a refusal.
Held: The practice . .
Cited – Okedare, Regina v CACD 27-Feb-2014
The court heard applications for leave to appeal on behalf of applicants who had either absconded or disappeared.
Held: The court considered whether the lawyers filing the appeals had authority, whether express or implied. ‘we are satisfied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.211386