Reference from Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission:- On 22 November 2006 following a trial at Glasgow High Court the appellant was convicted of two charges of aggravated assault. The appellant was subsequently sentenced to an extended sentence of 8 years detention comprising a custodial term of 6 years and an extension period of 2 years in relation to charge one. In relation to the second charge he was sentenced to 18 months detention to run concurrently with the first charge. The appellant appealed against his conviction on charge 1 on different grounds from those raised in this reference. In June 2007 application for leave to appeal was refused at both first and second sifts. The appellant applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission who made a reference to the court on 14 October 2008. The first ground of appeal related to the failure by the Crown to disclose certain material relating to a defence witness of the appellant’s co-accused whom the Crown had obtained a statement from. In addition a synopsis of the CCTV footage prepared by a police officer was included in the report to the procurator fiscal but was not included as a production and was not disclosed to the defence. The second ground of appeal related to defective representation on the basis of an alleged failure of trial counsel, even in the absence of access to the undisclosed material, properly to appreciate the significance of the CCTV footage and to identify the man with the golf club as the defence witness and not the appellant. Here it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the cumulative effect of the non‑disclosure and the defective representation gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Crown accepted that the material identified in the ground of appeal ought to have been disclosed, however, the advocate depute submitted that there had been no miscarriage of justice and as far as the question of defective representation was concerned the advocate depute submitted that it was not clear that trial counsel had been under a misapprehension as to the contents of the CCTV footage. Here the court considered whether there was a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict if the undisclosed material had been available and whether trial counsel did misunderstand the contents of the CCTV footage to the extent of amounting to defective representation.