Leave to appeal was refused where both grounds of appeal, against the judge's ruling that he did not have the power to prevent the prosecution from disclosing a defence statement to any co-accused, were bound to fail.Application for leave to appeal a ruling concerning the disclosure of the applicant's ('M') defence statement. M was one of ten persons awaiting trial for conspiracy to defraud. At a preparatory hearing, the co-accused were all ordered to serve a defence statement. Considering R v Tariq (1991) 92 Cr App R 277, the judge did not make any order for service of the defence statements on the co-accused. On 3 March 2003 the judge ruled that: (i) he did not have the power to prevent the prosecution from disclosing M's defence statement to any of his co-accused; and (ii) the Crown must make a decision of disclosure in accordance with their statutory duty. M sought to raise two grounds of appeal. The first was that the judge erred by ruling that the Crown had a duty to consider whether they were require to disclose a defence statement served by a co-accused. The second was that the judge erred by concluding that "he had no power to monitor or supervise the Crown's duty regarding disclosure and could not prevent the Crown disclosing certain material if they so decided".HELD: (1) Both grounds of appeal sought to be raised by M were without merit and bound to fail. (2) (R v Cairns & 2 Ors (2002) EWCA Crim 2838 clearly settled the law regarding the prosecution duty to consider whether they were required to disclose information in their possession to the defence. The judge correctly ruled that the prosecution had a duty to consider whether they were required to disclose any defence statement. Accordingly, the second ground of appeal was unarguable. (3) The conclusion attributed to the judge in the second ground of appeal was inaccurate.Application refused.
 EWCA Crim 1766