The defendant appealed from his conviction of murder. He complained that the judge should not have admitted in evidence material derived from a covert surveillance. The covert surveillance was of the defendant at his family home, and had been authorised by the Chief Constable and the Surveillance Commissioner. He complained that the matters in issue were subject to privilege, and that the prosecution was an abuse. The matters revealed were his investigation after the death of the legal nature of self defence on his computer, and his conversations with his defence lawyers.
Held: ‘The surveillance was lawful. The relevant disclosure took place. The record of incriminating conversations was unchallenged. We understand that there may be extreme cases in which the prosecuting authorities (using the words in a comprehensive way) may interfere so significantly with the legal privilege of a defendant that the very integrity of the administration of justice may be undermined. That, however, did not happen here. Lawful covert surveillance produced damaging evidence against all three defendants. The process worked lawfully: any flaws were minor and short, and inconsequential. There were no grounds to justify a stay.’
Judges:
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Citations:
[2013] EWCA Crim 642
Links:
Statutes:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, Police Act 1997, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.510717