R (on the application of Keogh) v Director of Public Prosecutions – Nunn Disclosure refusal

The claimant renewed his application for permission to challenge the failure of the DPP to permit access to CCTV footage introduced at his criminal trial or to the forensic file in those proceedings.

This raised the pivotal issue of the duty of the Crown to assist in post conviction disclosure . The Court applied the principles in Nunn [2014] UKSC 37 and held that the claimant had an alternative remedy by way of an application to the CCRC. The submission that the CCTV may be unreliable could be considered and investigated by the CCRC. The forensic file was requested as the claimant’s experts would need access if they are “to be enabled to supply the new evidence which might undermine the safety of his conviction.” As his request is for material that did exist and was used at his trial, the safety net in the case of disputed requests for review lies in the CCRC.

This case again raises the concerns that arise over Nunn and whether its decision is being applied inconsistently across Uk Police Forces as a way to defeat legitimate appeal investigations . In the meantime until this issue is resolved decisions such as this will continue to limit appellants prospects of investigating their convictions .

 



Categories: Caselaw, Miscarriage

Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: