Crown Prosecution Service and Another v Gohil: CA 26 Nov 2012

The CPS had obtained evidence through letters of request. Mr and Mrs Gohil had previously divorced and reached a financial settlement. The evidence apparently disclosed further substantial assets which W said had not been disclosed in the settlement negotiations. She now sought to use the new information to use he re-opening of the ancillary relief proceedings.
Held: Information obtained for the purposes of criminal proceedings through letters of request could not be used for additional purposes.
Held: The decision in the BOC case was wrong and that the court was not bound by it. It also concluded that the fact that material obtained under the 2003 Act had been adduced in open court in a criminal trial did not render it admissible in proceedings not identified in the requests.
Lord Dyson MR, Hallett, McFarlane LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1550, [2013] Lloyd’s Rep FC 115, [2013] 2 WLR 1123, [2013] Fam 276, [2013] Fam Law 389, [2013] 1 FCR 371, [2012] WLR(D) 351, [2013] 1 FLR 1095, [2013] 1 FAM 276
Bailii, WLRD
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoGohil v Gohil FD 25-Sep-2012
The parties had divorced and financial relief settled. W now applied to have the order set aside on the grounds of alleged serious material non-disclosure, fraud and misrepresentation by the husband. W had attended his later trial and obtained much . .

Cited by:
CitedTchenguiz v Director of The Serious Fraud Office and Others CA 31-Oct-2014
The appellant challenged an order of the Commercial Court refusing permission for documents disclosed in English litigation to be used in litigation proceedings in Guernsey. The principal issue is whether the judge correctly weighed up the . .
See AlsoGohil v Gohil (No 2) CA 13-Mar-2014
The parties had agreed financial provision on their divorce, but W subsequently discovered what she said was material non-disclosure by H. The court was now asked whether a court of first instance had jurisdiction to set aside a final financial . .
See AlsoGohil v Gohil SC 14-Oct-2015
The Court was asked ‘Do the principles referable to the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal, as propounded in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, have any relevance to the determination of a spouse’s . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 April 2021; Ref: scu.466289