The defendants had been pursued in substantial commercial litigation. They were alleged to have perjured themselves in affidavits of means sworn and filed at court. Later they had entered into deeds with the other parties, and part of the consideration was an agreement by those other parties not to pursue them for perjury. The defendants claimed a common interest privilege as a basis for excluding the affidavits. That failed because that privilege applied as between those on the same side of a case, and that did not apply here. Nor was there any restriction on their use by any implied undertaking in the civil proceedings. No confidentiality applied, either in the proceedings or in the deed of settlement. They claimed the proceedings were an abuse of process. However the evidence had not been obtained oppressively, because no confidence existed in them. Special applications had been made under PACE, but again there had been no confidence to protect. Nor had any legitimate expectation been created by the deed. There was no compulsion, and the defendants were in receipt of legal advice.
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose, Mr Justice Bell, Mr Justice Silber
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Crim 1750
Links:
Statutes:
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 35, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 76, 78
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Buttes Oil and Gas Co v Hammer CA 1981
Reports made by employees to their employers or by agents to their principals are not privileged unless they satisfy, and are privileged if they are reports made for the purpose of being laid before the party’s legal adviser for the purpose of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.159916
