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.
Held: The judge’s decision not to do so was upheld.
Lord Esher said: ‘this rule as to public prosecutions was founded on grounds of public policy, and if this prosecution was a public prosecution the rule attaches . . I do not say it is a rule which can never be departed from; if upon the trial of a prisoner the judge should be of opinion that the disclosure of the name of the informant is necessary or right in order to shew the prisoner’s innocence, then one public policy is in conflict with another public policy, and that which says that an innocent man is not to be condemned when his innocence can be proved is the policy that must prevail. But except in that case, this rule of public policy is not a matter of discretion; it is a rule of law, and as such should be applied by the judge at the trial, who should not treat it as a matter of discretion.’
The rule applied: ‘not only to the trial of the prisoner, but also to a subsequent civil action between the parties on the ground that the criminal prosecution was maliciously instituted or brought about.’
Lord Esher
(1890) 25 QBD 494
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPowell v Chief Constable of North Wales Constabulary CA 20-Aug-1999
Application for permission to appeal by the defendant. The defendant had asserted a public interest immunity in refusing to disclose evidence of a witness since it would lead to the revelation of the identity of an informer.
Held: Leave was . .
CitedThe Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police v McNally CA 25-Jan-2002
The claimant sought damages against the police for malicious prosecution and otherwise. He sought disclosure of whether a party referred to in the case as X, had at any time been a paid informer. The police appealed an order to disclose this. . .
CitedRegina v Rankine CACD 1986
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 . .
CitedSavage v Hoddinot (Chief Constable of Hampshire) CA 6-Feb-1997
A police informer may abandon anonymity to sue police for promised fees. . .
CitedMahon and Others v Mahon and Others CA 23-May-1997
Appeal from striking out of defamation action as abuse of process. . .
ExplainedD v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
CitedAshworth Security Hospital v MGN Limited HL 27-Jun-2002
Order for Journalist to Disclose Sources
The newspaper published details of the medical records of Ian Brady, a prisoner and patient of the applicant. The applicant sought an order requiring the defendant newspaper to disclose the identity of the source of material which appeared to have . .
CitedAndrew v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis ChD 18-Mar-2011
The claimant sought unredacted disclosure of documents by the second defendant so that he could pursue an action against the first, who, he said, were thought to have intercepted his mobile phone messages, and where the second defendant had . .
CitedRegina v Lewes Justices ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department; Rogers v Home Secretary HL 1972
The House considered a claim for public interest immunity.
Held: Lord Simon of Glaisdale said: ‘the public interest which demands that the evidence be withheld has to be weighed against the public interest in the administration of justice that . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 October 2021; Ref: scu.180912