R appealed his conviction for unlawfully supplying a controlled drug. Officers claimed to have seen him, but the court agreed not to order disclosure of their observation location.
Held: The appeal failed. It was important not to discourage members of the public from co-operating with the police. In the same way that an officer cannot be obliged to give the name of his informant, he was not to be asked to reveal information which would lead to such disclosure. It was for the defendant to show good reason why such information was required.
Citations:
[1986] QB 861
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Attorney General v Briant 1846
. .
Cited – Regina v Hennessy (Timothy) 1978
The court described the duty on a prosecutor to disclose evidence: ‘those who prepare and conduct prosecutions owe a duty to the courts to ensure that all relevant evidence of help to an accused is either led by them or made available to the . .
Cited – Webb v Catchlove 1886
. .
Cited – Marks v Beyfus 1890
The plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. He called the Director of Public Prosecutions as a witness, who refused to identify the name of the person who had given him the information on which he had acted against the plaintiff.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223565