The Court of Criminal Appeal refused an application by Christopher Griffin to add a new media coverage ground to his application for leave to appeal against conviction and to admit further newspaper and broadcast material. The ruling addressed those applications only; it did not decide the existing grounds for leave to appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Macken J on 24 July 2008, concerned material counsel sought to introduce at a hearing on 27 June. Some reports had already featured in applications made during the trial to discharge the jury. Those applications, made on 14, 15 and 19 December 2006, were rejected by the trial judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal said those reports were already before it and covered by an existing ground, so nothing turned on them in this application.
For the remaining reports, counsel proposed a new ground in substance alleging that media coverage during the trial made it unsatisfactory. The prosecution opposed the application, submitting that the proposed ground was new and that the additional reports had not been raised before the trial judge or included in the applicant’s written submissions.
The court identified three main reasons to refuse the new ground and material: they did not meet the requirements governing fresh evidence; no credible explanation was given for omitting the ground from the original grounds; and neither the proposed ground nor the additional material had been the subject of an application or ruling at trial. No motion to add the ground or supporting affidavit explaining its late introduction had been filed.
The court said the reports were available during the trial and could have been obtained without exercising due diligence. It treated a report published on 5 May 2007 separately: because it appeared after conviction, it could not, in the court’s view, have influenced the jury. The judgment also noted the jury’s undertaking not to be influenced by media coverage.
The court found no exceptional circumstances requiring the proposed ground to be added in the interests of justice. It refused both the application to add that ground and the application to admit the additional material. Other grounds in the pending application for leave to appeal remained outside the decision described here.