Reports, which had been prepared for the purposes of a police complaint procedure, could be entitled to protection from disclosure under a public interest immunity certificate. The court also considered the relationship between the documentation and the decision as to whether a trial wasto be by judge alone, or with a jury. Cost is also a consideration: ‘The case as it stands will be very lengthy, very expensive, very burdensome and very difficult to control if tried by a judge alone. If tried by a judge and jury it will be even lengthier, even more expensive, even more burdensome and even more difficult to control.’ The fact that sight of a document for inspection may give the inspecting party a litigious advantage in the litigation does not of itself make production of the document unfair: ‘The crucial consideration is, in my judgment, the meaning of the expression ‘disposing fairly of the cause or matter’. Those words direct attention to the question whether inspection is necessary for the fair determination of the matter, whether by trial or otherwise. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that one party does not enjoy an unfair advantage or suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation as a result of a document not being produced for inspection. It is, I think, of no importance that a party is curious about the contents of a document or would like to know the contents of it, if he suffers no litigious disadvantage by not seeing it and would gain no litigious advantage by seeing it. That, in my judgment, is the test.’
Judges:
Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Rose, Morritt LJJ
Citations:
Independent 28-Feb-1995, Gazette 15-Mar-1995, Times 19-Jan-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 447
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Right Hon Aitken MP and Preston; Pallister and Guardian Newspapers Ltd CA 15-May-1997
The defendants appealed against an order that a defamation trial should proced before a judge alone.
Held: ‘Where the parties, or one of them, is a public figure, or there are matters of national interest in question, this would suggest the . .
Cited – Branson v Snowden; Branson v Gtech UK Corporation (a Body Corporate) and Rendine CA 3-Jul-1997
The respective parties had been preparing competing bids for the National Lottery. One (Branson) alleged that the other had offerered a bribe. The other responded that the allegation was a lie, and each sued the other for defamation.
Held: The . .
Cited – Brooker and Brooker v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police CA 26-Oct-1998
The plaintiffs claimed damages against the respondents for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. By mistake the defendants disclosed a letter from a senior officer supporting the allegation, despite which the Police Complaints Authority had denied . .
Cited – Ashley and Another v Sussex Police CA 27-Jul-2006
The deceased was shot by police officers raiding his flat in 1998. The claimants sought damages for his estate. They had succeeded in claiming damages for false imprisonment, but now appealed dismissal of their claim for damages for assault and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Defamation, Litigation Practice
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.89742