The claimant sought damages against the police for malicious prosecution and otherwise. He sought disclosure of whether a party referred to in the case as X, had at any time been a paid informer. The police appealed an order to disclose this. Counsel for the police had sought to rely upon assertions made as to X’s behaviour. The judge refused a public interest immunity certificate.
Held: The general rule is against disclosure of informant’s identities even in civil cases, but there are exceptions, including the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice. In this case there was such a risk, and the judge’s order stood. The judge need not restrict himself to the list of exceptions in the NSPCC case.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld, Lord Justice Robert Walker, And, Sir Christopher Slade
Citations:
Times 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWCA Civ 14, [2002] Crim LR 832
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Marks v Beyfus 1890
The plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. He called the Director of Public Prosecutions as a witness, who refused to identify the name of the person who had given him the information on which he had acted against the plaintiff.
Cited – Savage v Hoddinot (Chief Constable of Hampshire) CA 6-Feb-1997
A police informer may abandon anonymity to sue police for promised fees. . .
Cited – D v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children HL 2-Feb-1977
Immunity from disclosure of their identity should be given to those who gave information about neglect or ill treatment of children to a local authority or the NSPCC similar to that which the law allowed to police informers.
Lord Simon of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167466
