Disclosure of Information to the Defence before Committal
| Author | J.A. Coutts |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300514 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal
of
Criminal
Law
done in relation to the employers' functions. Whether or
not
such
support should be a duty laid on employers, there would seem to be no
reason
why
they should have no right to give that support;
and
there is
no reason why police officers should be an exception to that principle.
Disclosure
of
Information to the Defence Before
Committal
Rv
DPp,
ex p
Lee
[1999] 2 All ER 737
The applicant for judicial review in this case was charged with
murder
following a violent conflict between him and the victim,
who
died two
days later. After his arrest, he was, following his third interview
with
the
police, detained in custody. His solicitor wrote to the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS), asking for copies of any statements he had made, infor-
mation of any conviction of any prosecution witness
and
copies of any
witness statements. for the identification of all prosecution witnesses
and
for 'full unused material'. Alater request was made
that
the
defendant's pathologist be given access to the Crown pathologist's
report,
and
for information of
what
convictions of the deceased were
known. The CPSreplied with a'courtesy core bundle' of statements by
three persons
and
of interviews by the police with the defendant, adding
that unused material would be supplied after committal. The solicitors
then
asked for 'full disclosure' by
the
CPS,
to enable the defendant to
apply for bail. Further letters passed between
the
parties, the CPS
insisting that further disclosure would be made only as required by
statute, that is to say, only after committal.
with the information which the prosecution should disclose to
the
defendant
who
is charged on indictment, but s 1(2)(a) makes it clear
that
the
provisions of that Part of the Act apply only after committal.
Section 3 of the Act, however, makes
it
equally clear that it is contem-
plated that some information may have been given to the defence at an
earlier stage
than
the committal proceedings, for s 3(I)(a),
when
deal-
ing with
what
must be disclosed (after committal), states that
'the
prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which
has
not
previously been disclosed to the accused', which the prosecutor
thinks might undermine the prosecution case. The section provides
what
material (other
than
'sensitive material') under subs (6) has to be
disclosed.
It
Is
when
such primary material has been disclosed that the
defence is
then
required, by s 25(5)
and
(6), to make to
the
prosecution
and
to
the
court a defence statement.
The first question faced by the court was
not
as to
what
information
had
to be given by the prosecution to the defence; it was as to
when
the required material had to be produced. The CPS maintained that,
although full disclosure had to be made after committal, the defendant
was
not
entitled (as he claimed) to such material at an earlier date. The
appellant submitted that the obligation to disclose arises with
the
arrest
416
To continue reading
Request your trial