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 judge or judge could best protect a defendant if he had also heard the application for a certificate. There were serious difficulties in always appointing independent counsel. The prosecution may not simply aim to achieve success at all costs, buty had independent duties. Where the defence could not be informed, independent counsel might be employed. In an Edwards case the prosecutor should approach the judge, and independent counsel informed as far as known of the defence case.
Judges:
Rose LJ, Penry Davey, David Clarke JJ
Citations:
Times 24-Oct-2003, Gazette 13-Nov-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 3006
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Edwards and Lewis v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Jul-2003
(Commission) The claimants said that the procedures used to secure their convictions amounted to entrapment, and that UK criminal procedures did not give sufficient protection so as to provide a fair trial. One was arrested with heroin, and the . .
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Acton Youth Court QBD 21-Jun-2001
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 . .
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 – Jasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .
Appeal – 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 by:
Appeal from – 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
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.187188