Divisional Court
| Published date | 01 April 2003 |
| Date | 01 April 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830306700202 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court
Abuse of Process: Destruction of
CCTV
Evidence
DPPv S (2002) Lawtel Doc. No. AC9500936
This was an appeal by way of case statedfrom
the
decision of
the
district
judge sitting at
the
magistrates' court to order
that
proceedings brought
against
the
defendant (5) for
an
alleged kidnap
and
indecent assault
should be stayed as an abuse of process. The district judge
had
made
a
number
of findings.
1. The complainant
had
been
with
friends
and
was walking
home
when
awhite
van
pulled up alongside her. One of
the
occupants,
alleged to be 5, grabbed
her
and
attempted to drag
her
into
the
van.
2. The complainant began
to
scream
and
before she was pulled into
the
van, a car passed by
and
she was able to escape.
3. The complainant
went
to
the
police
the
following day
and
was
interviewed. She described the attacker,
but
did
not
mention
whether
she
had
seen
him
before
the
incident or
whether
on the
night of
the
attack she
had
been
drinking alcohol.
4. 5 was arrested
and
interviewed. He denied
any
involvement in
the
alleged incident
but
stated
that
when
he
had
driven to
the
super-
market he saw a group of youths he
had
seen before at
the
campsite
where
he lived
and
he stopped to talk
to
them.
5. 5 stated
that
the
youths
had
been
drinking alcohol
and
told the
police
that
the
youths might have
been
captured on the super-
market's
CCTV
system buying alcohol.
6. At an identification parade, 5 was identified as
the
attacker.
7. 5 was charged
and
made
astatement claiming
that
he was likely to
be picked
out
at
the
identification parade as
the
three
girls he
had
spoken to on
the
night in question
had had
along time
to
look at
him,
had
been
drinking alcohol
and
who
might be captured on the
supermarket's
CCTV
footage.
8.
It
transpired
that
despite requests to keep
the
ret
evant
CCTV
images,
the
supermarket no longer
had
the
footage.
9. There were
two
other
witnesses
who
werefriends of
the
complain-
ant,
who
described having aconversation
with
a
man
near
to a
caravan site.
5argued
that
the
proceedings should be stayed
on
the
basis
that
he
could
not
receive a fair trial.
It
was argued
that
the
contents of
the
CCTV
tapes were essential to the defence in
that
they
might
show
the
com-
plainant buying
OJ:
drinking alcohol, thus supporting S's challenge to
her
credibility,
and
seriously undermining
the
evidence of
the
identification
parade. The prosecution argued
that
the
police
had
displayed no bad
faith in
not
securing
the
retention of
the
tape by
the
supermarket,
but
merely inadvertence,
and
in
any
event,
the
video would
make
no
difference
to
the
trial.
87
To continue reading
Request your trial