The two appellants were among four convicted of robbery. Imran complained that the police had not disclosed the existence of CCTV coverage before the interview, and Hussain that a copy of the surveillance tape had been given to the jury after retirement.
Held: Leave to appeal was refused.
As to any obligation on the police to disclose all evidence: ‘it is submitted that the tenor of sections 34 to 38 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 require the police to give as full a briefing as possible of disclosing all material to a legal representative before the interview with a suspect commences. We do not agree. There is of course a duty on the police not actively to mislead any suspect, but it is in our judgment totally impossible to spell out either expressly or by any permissible implication from those five sections any such requirement on the part of the police.’
As to the tape, which had already been seen in court: ‘for the jury to view the tape again amounted to no more than a repeat of evidence which had been given.’ However, ‘in future if such a request is made to re-view evidence of police surveillance, it is better if it is done in open court where it can be seen that nothing untoward takes place.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Rougier, Maurice Kay LJJ
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Crim 1401, [1997] CLR 754
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 34 35 36 37 38
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Davis (George) CACD 1976
After retirement, the jury requested, and was inadvertently supplied with a copy of a statement made by a witness to the police. The statement had been used by defence counsel for the purposes of cross-examination, but the document itself had not . .
Cited – Regina v Stewart and Sappleton CACD 1989
After retirement, the jury requested provision of scales which were given. The defendants faced an accusation of importing cannabis of a certain weight, and claimed to have been unaware of the presence of the cannabis in their bags.
Held: Once . .
Cited – Regina v Rawlings, Regina v Broadbent CACD 19-Oct-1994
Guidance was given on the circumstances for showing video evidence to a jury a second time after they had once retired.
Held: It should be exceptional only, because of the risk of it attracting greater weight than other evidence. It remains a . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Thirwell CACD 14-Feb-2002
The defendant appealed his conviction for murder. He said that three pieces of evidence should have been excluded. The police station interview had been conducted against a background where his solicitor had been denied access to a post mortem . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Police
Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.150856
