It was not normally necessary for magistrates to excuse themselves from further involvement in a case after making preliminary rulings on a request for public immunity certificates. The purpose of that ex parte hearing was to ensure the protection of the defendant. Indeed knowing of that original application might allow the defendant greater protection. The fact that magistrates were judges both of the law and of the facts in a case did not sufficiently distinguish them from other decision makers, and the approval of such an approach under the Act should be extended to magistrates also.
Times 21-Jun-2001, Gazette 21-Jun-2001,  1 WLR 1828,  EWHC Admin 402
Cited – Regina v Smith (Joe) CACD 20-Dec-2000
The defendant was arrested for burglary and a non-intimate sample taken without his consent. The DNA profile matched blood at the scene of the burglary, and this match was the bedrock of the prosecution case. Before the trial, prosecuting counsel . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C CACD 16-Oct-2003
The defendants were charged with serious drugs offences. The prosecutor had applied for public interest immunity certificates. The judge had required the appointment of independent counsel. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: The same district . .
Cited – Regina v H; Regina v C HL 5-Feb-2004
Use of Special Counsel as Last Resort Only
The accused faced charges of conspiring to supply Class A drugs. The prosecution had sought public interest immunity certificates. Special counsel had been appointed by the court to represent the defendants’ interests at the applications.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Magistrates
Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85962