The defendant appealed against a refusal of a stay of the proceedings as an abuse, and the decision to admit certaiin evidence, and a refusal to issue a witness summons against an alleged informant. The defendant had been subject to an undercover investigation, which, he said officers had acted as agent provocateurs.
Held: In assessing whether evidence is ‘likely to be material evidence’ within the meaning of s.2(1) of the 1965 Act, likelihood involves a real possibility, not necessarily a probability.
Judges:
Henry LJ, Bracewell, Richards JJ
Citations:
[2000] EWCA Crim 48
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 2
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire County Council QBD 5-May-1995
Disclosure by third parties in criminal proceedings was not affected by other new rule. Simon Brown LJ summarised the tests for materiality for requiring production of dicuments from third parties by magistrates: ‘The central principles . . . are as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.158698