Criminal Note of Appeal Against Conviction:- On 1 August 2008, following a trial at the High Court in Edinburgh, the appellant was found guilty of a charge of attempted murder, a charge of being in possession of heroin, two charges of breach of the peace and a contravention of section 41(1)(a) of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. The appellant was sentenced to a period of 9 years imprisonment in cumulo. The appellant appealed against his conviction in relation to the attempted murder charge on the grounds that the Crown failed in their duty of disclosure to the defence, by failing to disclose a certified copy notebook extract in relation to Crown witness Constable Colin Peaston. This related to remarks attributed to the appellant, made by him to Peaston and his colleague, whilst the appellant was being treated at hospital. These comments were not in Peaston’s notebook when he was referred to his notebook during the course of his evidence. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the remarks attributed to the appellant in the hospital were an essential part of the Crown case and the failure by the Crown to disclose the notebook resulted in the agents and counsel for the appellant being deprived of the opportunity to properly prepare his defence and challenge the disputed remarks and the trial had been rendered unfair. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the question that had to be asked was whether, taking all the circumstances of the trial into account, there was a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict, had the duty of disclosure been performed fully and timeously. It was submitted on behalf of the Crown that there had been disclosure, albeit during the course of the trial and those representing the appellant at the trial had gone on to challenge the credibility and reliability of the police witnesses to a considerable extent. Further, the defence could have sought the adjournment of the trial or a desertion of the trial, however, counsel for the appellant proceeded at that time. Here the court considered whether if the notebook had been disclosed at an earlier stage prior to the trial it would have made any difference to the conduct of the trial or the likely verdict of the jury.