The prosecution had failed to disclose certain letters and photographs exchanged by the Defendant and the father of her child and used them in cross-examination to rebut her defence that she had been carrying drugs under duress exerted by him. The letters revealed a more affectionate relationship than the Defendant had admitted in evidence.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Ralph Gibson LJ said: ‘The basic principle that the prosecution must include all probative material on which it intends to rely, and must tender it as part of the prosecution case, does not form part of our law because the law wishes to help liars to tell more convincing lies, but because an accused needs to know in advance the case which will be made against him if he is to have a proper opportunity of giving his answer to that case to the best of his ability. The accused is also entitled, when he decides whether or not to go into the box to give evidence, to know what the case is he has to meet. The intelligence and powers of memory and of literacy of accused people vary greatly. Some people may exaggerate and embroider and lie even when their basic case is true.
It is better in the interests of justice that an accused is not induced, by thinking that he is safe if he does so, to exaggerate, or to embroider, or to lie . . so to do might be to ambush the accused . . Further, we would add, where the evidence is of great force, the proper disclosing of it may cause the accused to plead guilty to the advantage both of the administration of justice and of the accused.’ and ‘Where the material in question, on the facts known to the prosecution, could only be damaging to the defence and of assistance to the prosecution, the obligation to disclose, if any, must, we think, be sought primarily in the principles governing the obligation of the prosecution to include within its case all probative material upon which it intends to rely, having regard to the facts and circumstances known to the prosecution when the case is presented.’
Judges:
Ralph Gibson LJ
Citations:
(1990) 91 Cr App R 226
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v McCartney, Hamlett, Beddow and Hulme CACD 16-May-2003
The defendants appealed convictions and sentences for a long series of armed robberies. The evidence centred on the admissions of a participant, whose statement, the defendants alleged was self serving and unreliable, and in one case served a . .
Cited – Pershad, Regina v CACD 10-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the prosection had been allowed to produce and use at trial evidence not previously disclosed. As a practicing barrister he had not paid his VAT for 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.185660
