The purpose of the reforms with the [Criminal Justice Act, (2003)] is to introduce a single (rather than a staged) test for disclosure and by emphasising the prosecutors continuing duty to disclose.

The prosecutor must keep under review the question whether at any given time (and, in particular, following the giving of a defence statement) there is prosecution material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused, and has not been disclosed to the accused. [Criminal Justice Act, (2003), Section 37(2)]

Failure in disclosure of documents is inconsistent with fundamental principles of a fair trial especially as the disclosure would provide direct evidence of considerable doubt about guilt. Prosecution failure to comply with the duty of disclosure. The CPIA code para 3.5 [Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, (1996)] imposes a duty on an investigator to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry whether these points towards or away from the suspect. Decision as to whether to investigate or not are essentially a matter of judgement for investigating officers [Shah, (2002), EWCA Crim 1623].

As the evidence is materially relevant to the case, the crown must take responsibly steps to obtain it [Flook, (2009), EWCA Crim 628, (2010)] which it did not. The significance and consequence of the non-disclosure must be assessed. The test that is applied is where take evidence requested to be disclosed, if there is a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict.

Caerwyn Ash was persistent in requesting disclosure to investigators who were unwilling to deploy procedural force to obtain and disclose evidence that would provided reasonable doubt.

The appellant tried to equip himself with this pivotal evidence. The requested disclosure would ultimately uncover Trevor James perjury and emails confirming he had transferred “32Gb of videos and images” at a time Caerwyn Ash was otherwise engaged and distracted with Trevor James wife. When asking what impact the requested material would have had on the mind of the jury is fucking obvious.

To be brutal and blunt, these were not trial errors or shortcoming in disclosure. Caerwyn Ash had repeatedly told the court and jury this evidence existed and used multiple legal pathways to gain the material to be blocked at each path by the trial judge, HHJ Wayne Beard. This is not a tenable argument but common sense. The appellant requested disclosure by multiple avenues but denied, the fresh evidence is available and is so abundantly convincing that the conviction is dramatically unsafe.

The consequence of non-compliance of disclosure is relevance to the public interest in the whistleblowing email sent on the 20^th September 2022 [Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, (1996), Section 14-16]. The averred disclosure failings had a significant effect that is contrary to the interest of justice. Had all relevant material been scheduled, reviewed and disclosed, the extent of the disclosure failing at trial are finally uncovered, and now the fresh evidence directly proves perjury [5.18.10] of the person Caerwyn Ash tried desperately to adduce evidence on bad character [5.18.4].

Warren Blackwell’s case is a stark illustration of the serious consequences that can flow when the state machinery failed because of errors in disclosure. Had the advocates in [R v Warren Blackwell, (2006)] been given the disclosure it requested, that demonstrated the complainants proclivity for fantasy, the jury would have possibly came to a different verdict. Not admitting the evidence might lead the jury reaching an unsafe conclusion.

The appellant has shown that the non-disclosure was material and cast doubts on the safety of the conviction, [Embleton, (2016), EWCA Crim 1968], [Gohil, (2018), EWCA Crim 2018 1 Cr App R 30]. The prosecution had presented a case to comply with its duty of disclosure and the defendant had been prevented from presenting a case in its best light, the convictions are unsafe [Akle, EWCA Crim 1879]. The CPS failed in its duty to disclose material through requested multiple ways as an abuse of process.