A CCRC Referral failed where the original case shifted by the time of the appeal with a DNA ground abandoned and the Court concluded that the weight of circumstantial evidence was not disturbed by the fresh grounds . This was despite concessions by the Crown over material non disclosures .
The Court addressed the issue of the Jury Impact test .
Held, in "fresh evidence" cases, the primary question of whether a conviction was safe was for the Court of Appeal itself and not what effect the fresh evidence would have on the mind of the jury (Stafford v DPP  A.C. 878;  3 W.L.R. 719; Pendleton  UKHL 66;  1 W.L.R. 72;  1 Cr. App. R. 34;  Crim. L.R. 398; Mushtaq Ahmed  EWCA Crim 2899; Noye  EWCA Crim 650; (2011) 119 B.M.L.R. 151; Dial v State of Trinidad and Tobago  UKPC 4;  1 W.L.R. 1660; Garland  EWCA Crim 1743;  Crim. L.R. 402). Although it was at one time thought that Pendleton was authority for a different approach, the law was now settled. The "jury impact" test was simply a way in which the court could test its view as to the safety of the conviction in a difficult case. The same approach applied in non-disclosure cases (Garland). The ultimate question for the Court was whether the undisclosed material and/or fresh evidence caused the Court to doubt the safety of the conviction.