The crown sought to adduce additional evidence on the defendant’s appeal of the content of discussions between the defendant and a social worker from the council youth offending service.
Held: The evidence should not be admitted. Such conversations were not akin to statements made during the preparation of a pre-sentence report, and were privileged. The Court said that it would only order such confidential discussions to be disclosed if there was a very good reason, because it would be contrary to public policy to do so.
‘Firstly, it would in our view be contrary to public policy to breach the confidentiality of discussions of the kind save for very good reason. Such discussions are not subject to privilege in the sense that something a defendant or appellant tells his lawyers would be; and the internal rules of Camden social services (or of any other local authority’s officers) are not binding in the courts; but we regard them as well drafted, sensible and worthy of respect. There is a distinction between disclosure necessary to avoid imminent future criminality (in particular a threat to someone’s life or safety) and the obtaining of admissions to past offences. It would be extremely unfortunate if convicted defendants (whether young or adult) were deterred from speaking to those charged with their supervision or rehabilitation until any appeal against conviction had been dealt with.’
Judges:
Bean LJ, McGowan J, Judge Dean QC
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Crim 2868, [2019] WLR(D) 29, [2019] 1 WLR 3744
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Lancashire County Council v E and F FD 4-Feb-2020
The court heard an application to set aside a witness summons, raising an important issue about the circumstances in which disclosure can be resisted on grounds of a religious duty of confidentiality, in the context of allegations of child sexual . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.633138
