The Court of Appeal has rejected a convicted man’s application for third-party disclosure from the Bar Standards Board (BSB) over claims that his prosecutor was drunk. Lord Justice Holgate said even if this had been the case – and it was not – it did not help Martyn Horne’s appeal.
Mr Horne was convicted at Reading Crown Court of five counts of offences against his ex-partner, four on guilty pleas. He had pleaded not guilty to count 5, an offence of burglary with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, but was convicted in November 2024. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, five years of which related to count 5.
No Grounds for Appeal
His trial counsel, Martyn Hynes, advised that there were no grounds for appeal, stating there was no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct or circumstances that prevented a fair trial. Seeking a second opinion, Mr Horne consulted John Cooper KC, who identified a single ground for appeal.
The appeal centered on the claim that the prosecution had raised a legitimate expectation that if Mr Horne pleaded guilty to two counts, they would not prosecute the fifth count. This expectation was said to have arisen during discussions between Mr Hynes and the prosecution counsel on April 8, 2024.
Allegations of Intoxication
The case relied on attendance notes and emails from Mr Horne’s legal team, suggesting the prosecution counsel was under investigation for being drunk on that date. Mr Cooper argued that the counsel’s condition was relevant to whether the legitimate expectation was created and that the applicant was not treated fairly.
In response, Mr Hynes stated he had provided emergency first aid to the prosecuting counsel, who had suffered a medical emergency in court. Mr Horne’s solicitors asked the BSB to confirm the status of an investigation into the counsel’s conduct, but the BSB declined, citing regulatory restrictions.
Court’s Decision
Lord Justice Holgate, delivering the court’s unanimous decision, noted that Mr Hynes’ attendance note made no mention of intoxication or any agreement to drop counts. The judge stated that the attendance note and emails were assertions that did not overcome the flaws in the claims, as revealed by contemporaneous evidence.
The court concluded that even if the counsel had been intoxicated, it would not overcome the evidence inconsistent with the claimed legitimate expectation.
