The defendant appealed against his conviction, saying the restrictions placed upon him in conducting his defence because the fact that he had been a member of the secret services, meant that he had been unable to conduct his defence properly, with witnesses giving evidence from behind screens, and documents being withheld.
Held: The appeal failed. Disclosures would have risked the safety of the individuals involved and national security: ‘the judge was careful to evaluate and to give weight to any possible prejudice, and the cross-examination by the applicant was only restricted in accordance with well established principle and to the extent that it would have been restricted if the applicant had been represented by counsel. As we have indicated, we see no reason to conclude that the judge failed to have regard to the cumulative effect of his decisions, and we reject the contention that the regime which he imposed was disproportionate. Indeed, as we have demonstrated, the rulings he made only went as far in the circumstances they had to go. ‘
Lord Justice Kennedy Mr Justice Bennett Mr Justice Cresswell
[2003] EWCA Crim 2218
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6, Official Secrets Act 1920 8(4), Official Secrets Act 1989 11(4), Crown Court Rules 1982 24A
England and Wales
Citing:
See also – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
See also – Regina v Shayler CACD 28-Sep-2001
Duress as Defence not closely Defined
The defendant had been a member of MI5. He had signed the Official Secrets Act, but then disclosed various matters, including material obtained by interceptions under the Interception of Communications Act. He claimed that his disclosures were made . .
Cited – Regina v Wakely 7-Jun-1990
(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination. . .
Cited by:
See also – Regina v Shayler HL 21-Mar-2002
The defendant had been a member of the security services. On becoming employed, and upon leaving, he had agreed to keep secret those matters disclosed to him. He had broken those agreements and was being prosecuted. He sought a decision that the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.184857