The prosecutor appealed against a termination ruling to the effect that the failure by the prosecutor in its disclosure obligations anounted to an abuse of process.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The defendants had been charged with fraudulent importation of large quantities of Class A and Class B drugs. The proposed defence was that their identities had been ‘hijacked’ by others to hide the activities of those others. Documents not disclosed would have supported that defence. However other of the judge’s criticisms were not well founded, and: ‘we have no doubt that the judge’s ruling could not be supported. In a case such as the present, the disclosure duty of the prosecution may be, and was in this case, onerous. It is for the judge to ensure that requests for disclosure are focused and not disproportionate. Orders for the entirety of case papers to be disclosed, when the point to be made from them is relatively circumscribed, are inappropriate. Moreover, deficiencies in disclosure may be censured, and were in this case, but it does not follow that the trial should not continue.’
Judges:
Stanley Burnton LJ, Stadlen, Morris QC JJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Crim 2854
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice Act 2003 61(4)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.449858
