Inadvertent Disclosure and the Lawyer—Client Relationship
| Author | Chris Taylor |
| Published date | 01 April 2005 |
| Date | 01 April 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.69.2.113.63529 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
will have to deal with is whether or not those powers have been
exercised proportionately in any given situation. Here the Court of
Appeal made a very clear distinction between the action of stopping the
vehicles which was lawful and the forcible removal and escort away
from the scene which was not. It should be borne in mind that each case
must be decided on its facts and the Court of Appeal did state that this
decision does not mean that the police could never act as they did in this
case (see at [54]).
Alan Davenport
Inadvertent Disclosure and the Lawyer–Client
Relationship
Rv B and G [2004] EWCA Crim 1368
The appellants, together with three others, faced various charges of
conspiracy to defraud, based on alleged attempts to secure investment
on the basis of proof of funding which was false.
At a preliminary hearing the prosecution made an ex parte PII applica-
tion in relation to certain sensitive material and, following a hearing in
chambers, the trial judge ruled against disclosing the material in ques-
tion to the defence. However, shortly after the start of the trial, an error
on the part of the prosecution resulted in the inadvertent disclosure of
some of the disputed material to the defence. This took the form of an
unredacted document, containing highly sensitive material, which was
passed to defence counsel. Before the error had been discovered, the
document had been read by both leading and junior counsel for both
appellants, and counsel for G had also informed his solicitor of its
contents. On learning of this, the trial judge immediately made an
interim order prohibiting those with knowledge of the sensitive material
from disseminating it further, including to their clients. At the same time
it became clear that, as a result on an entirely unrelated matter, the jury
would have to be discharged.
Some days later a further ex parte hearing was held, during the course
of which the original decision of the trial judge to withhold the disputed
material was revisited. Although this hearing was originally intended to
be inter partes, defence counsel declined to attend. Instead, written
submissions were provided, both from counsel who knew the contents
of the disclosed document and those who did not. Following this hearing
the trial judge made a provisional ruling that the material which had
been inadvertently disclosed should remain withheld from the defence
and that this would not result in any injustice to the appellants. Two
days later the jury were discharged and the judge heard further argu-
ment surrounding the order which had been made on discovery of the
inadvertent disclosure, prohibiting further dissemination of the mater-
ial. At the conclusion of this hearing, the judge ordered that the lawyers
who were aware of the nature of the sensitive material should make no
Inadvertent Disclosure and the Lawyer–Client Relationship
113
To continue reading
Request your trial