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 returning officer who, under the Code of Practice was a ‘delegated investigator’ with associated duties.
Held: Appeals were variously allowed and rejected. The documents were collected before the Code now relied upon came into effect, and ‘the enquiry carried out by the police was neither a joint, nor a delegated, investigation. It was in the nature of an examination by a complainant of suspicious documents subsequently handed to the police. We would draw a comparison between the inquiry we have described and the production to the police of other suspicious documents, for example, cheques drawn on a bank. It would not, in such circumstances, be suggested that the bank was a joint or delegated investigator although it provided the material which was the subject of investigation.’
The existence of the documents seized was a matter of public knowledge and was known to the defendants. Appeals on these grounds were rejected.
The judge had however erred in failing to remind the jury of necessary cautions about the ESDA evidence being used. Nor was satisfactory evidence brought to establish that other members of the relevant household might not have completed the false forms.

Pitchford LJ, Wilkie, Holroyde JJ
[2011] EWCA Crim 2240
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005 (SI 2005) No 985, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 26
England and Wales
CitedRegina v JAK CACD 1992
The defendant was accused of rape and other indecent assaults going back some 20 years. He appealed against a refusal of a stay on the grounds of abuse of process given the very long delay before any complaint was made.
Held: The application . .
CitedRegina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
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 . .
CitedRegina v Telford Justices, ex parte Badhan CACD 1991
The defendant was accused of a sexual offence alleged to have been committed some 15 years earlier. He asked the magistrates to dismiss the charge as an abuse of process, and now appealed their refusal.
Held: The onus was on the accused to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Elections, Criminal Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.445045