Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2011] All ER (D) 64 (Oct)
Neutral Citation: [2011] EWCA Crim 2240
Court: Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Judge:

Pitchford LJ, Wilkie and Holroyde JJ

Representation Abbas Lakha QC and Aneurin Brewer (instructed by Khan Solicitors) for JK.
  Nirmal Shant QC (instructed by Shaikh Ayub Solicitors) RK.
  Richard Barraclough QC (instructed by Shahid & Yasmin Solicitors) MS.
  Mukhtar Hussain QC and A Quzi (instructed by Stephen Lickrish Solicitors) for MF.
  Gordon Cole QC and Mark Ainsworth (instructed by CPS - York Special Crime Division) for the Crown.
Judgment Dates: 7 October 2011

Catchwords

Criminal Evidence - Disclosure - Conspiracy to defraud electoral registration officer - Whether electoral registration officer and staff were delegated investigators - Whether evidence obtained from electoral registration officer and staff material obtained in the course of criminal investigation and material subject to disclosure by police - Whether duty to disclose evidence - Summing up - Whether judge adequately summing up defence case - Whether judge's directions adequate - Whether convictions unsafe - (Code of Practice) Order 2005, , para 3.4.

The Case

Criminal Evidence Disclosure. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, quashed the convictions of defendants for conspiracy with others to defraud the electoral registration officer of Bradford City Council by dishonestly causing and permitting to be submitted to the officer falsely completed applications to vote by post where the judge had given an inadequate summary of the evidence relevant to the defence case and inadequate directions.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.