The prosecution did not give the defence a copy of the statement of a witness as to material facts which supported the defence case because it considered that it might require to use the statement if the person who had made it were called as a defence witness. In fact, the defence did not call the witness because it was unaware of a change in the relationship between her and a co-defendant.
Held: The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction . Though the Court accepted that the rule in Bryant and Dickson laid down the general practice as to a prosecutor’s obligation to disclose, it stated that in some cases, including the case before it, an inflexible application of the rule could lead to injustice and there should be exceptions to it: ‘This Court . . wishes to endorse the observation made in the paragraph in Archbold: that it must be remembered that an inflexible application of Bryant and Dickson (supra) can lead to an injustice. In the circumstances of this case, the Court has no doubt whatever that for that trial to proceed on the basis that it did, with the defence wholly unaware of the change in the relationship between these two witnesses and of the fact that the statement had been given, is the sort of injustice which may occur.’ and ‘It is not possible to make a ruling as to the circumstances in which it is or is not right to exercise the discretion one way or the other. In the vast majority of cases the experience and feeling of counsel will lead to the right decision being made but when a wrong decision is made then the matter has to be dealt with properly and the appeal allowed on that ground.’
Citations:
[1989] 90 Cr App R 107
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Rex v Bryant and Dickson CCA 1946
A fraud occurred in respect of the repairing of ambulances in a garage operated by a company in which the defendant Dickson was the major shareholder and where the defendant Bryant worked. An employee of the company at the garage would make an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Mills, Regina v Poole HL 24-Jul-1997
The prosecution have a duty to disclose to the defence the statement of an adverse witness and not just to provide the name and address, even though that person was not seen as credible witness by the prosecution. ‘the rule in Bryant and Dickson is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.231073