A material irregularity had occurred because the prosecution had failed to disclose to the defence that they were in possession of a statement signed by a defence witness as to alibi which was used to cross-examine her when she gave evidence.
Held: ‘We regard this as absurd. There will of course be occasions when such investigations will reveal positive information assisting the defence case. Such material will be disclosed in accordance with current principles. Similarly, the results may provide positive evidence to support the prosecution case, and enable the prosecution to serve notice of further evidence and rely upon it as part of the prosecution case. ‘Where, however, as here, the result of checking the alibi notice is to provide the prosecution with material which serves to undermine the credibility of a witness, apparently to be relied upon by the defence, there is in our judgment no duty of disclosure.’
Judges:
Judge J
Citations:
Unreported, 19 December 1995
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Regina v Brown (Winston) HL 20-Feb-1997
The victim had been stabbed outside a nightclub. Two witnesses identified the defendant. The defendants complained that evidence had not been disclosed to them.
Held: There is no duty at common law on the prosecution to warn the defence of . .
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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.193836