The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant whose evidence had contained many demonstrable lies.
Held: Longmore LJ said: ‘the Crown does have obligations in respect of material in the hands of third parties and a conviction would, in any event, be unsafe if the absence of disclosure of material in the possession of a third party meant that an accused could not have a fair trial.’ Microsoft had given incorrect information about their involvement with the lying witness. They agreed to give full disclosure, but never did. The judge had made a formal order to solicitors acting for Microsoft for further discovery. Microsoft had done the minimum required to co-operate by the judge considered that a fair trial remained possible. The prosecution evidence case consisted of rather more than the evidence of the challenged witness. The conviction was safe.
Judges:
Longmore LJ, Silber, Andrew Smith JJ
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Crim 681
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 81, Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 2, Indictments Act 1915 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Maguire CACD 1992
The defendant, convicted of murder, had died. It later came to light that materials with the prosecution forensic team had not been disclosed by the prosecution.
Held: The Home Secretary could make a reference to the Appeal court despite the . .
Cited – Regina v Ward (Judith) CACD 15-Jul-1992
The defendant had been wrongly convicted of IRA bombings. She said that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence.
Held: The prosecution’s forensic scientists are under a common law duty to disclose to the defence anything they may . .
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.
Cited – Regina v Early, Regina v Bajwa, Regina v Vickers etc CACD 26-Jul-2002
The appellants challenged their convictions after several trials, alleging dishonesty on the part of the Customs and Excise prosecuting team in misleading the trial judges when making pre-trial applications. Several prosecutions had depended upon . .
Cited – Rex v Pople; Rex v Smith 1950
‘any alteration [of an indictment] in matters of description, and probably in many other respects, may be made in order to meet the evidence in the case as long as the amendment causes no injustice to the accused person’. . .
Cited – Regina v Radley 1973
Lord Widgery CJ ‘one ought to give a fairly liberal meaning to the language of section 5’ . .
Cited – Regina v Stanley CACD 8-Dec-1998
A count on an indictment alleging VAT offences which included charges both of understating outputs and making false input claims was defective in not allowing a jury to say clearly of which offence the accused was guilty. ‘the Court of Appeal had . .
Cited – Regina v Patel CACD 7-Aug-1991
Conspiracy . .
Cited – Regina v Coughlan and Young CACD 1976
Coughlan and Young were convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to cause explosions in the United Kingdom, the prosecution having limited the allegation to explosions in Birmingham and its neighbourhood. Charges had been brought in respect . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Wood; Director of Public Prosecutions v McGillicuddy Admn 19-Jan-2006
Each defendant sought disclosure of materials concerning the intoximeter instruments, having been charged with driving with excess alcohol. The defendants said that the meters were inaccurate and that the manufacturers were in effect part of the . .
Cited – Regina v Khan and Others CACD 7-Oct-2011
The appellants challenged their convictions for the fraudulent use of falsely completed applications to vote by post. They said that the prosecutors had failed properly to disclose other postal applications also suspected and collected by the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195640
