Public Interest Immunity
| Author | Chris Taylor |
| Date | 01 August 2005 |
| Published date | 01 August 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2005.69.4.306 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Public Interest Immunity
R vWest (Ricky) [2005] EWCA Crim 517
The appellant was convicted in 2002 on two counts of possession of
Class A drugs with intent to supply. The charges arose from the discov-
ery by the police of a large quantity of drugs at the appellant’s house.
In his defence, the appellant claimed that he had arranged to pur-
chase £500 of cocaine intended solely for his own use from a supplier
named ‘Kenny’. As part of the deal, Kenny had agreed to deliver the
cocaine to the appellant’s house, but West was not at home when the
delivery was made. On his return to the house, instead of the relatively
small amount of drugs which he had ordered, he discovered a large
quantity and variety of drugs including MDMA tablets, cocaine and
cannabis. The amounts involved were so substantial that they were
highly suggestive of an intent to supply others. At 7.30 pm on the same
day, the police executed a search warrant at the appellant’s address and
discovered the drugs.
The appellant argued that he had been ‘set up’ by either Kenny or one
of his associates, who had placed the incriminating quantity of drugs in
his house and then notified the police. In order to support this defence,
the appellant sought access to the information which had prompted the
police to secure a warrant for the search of the premises. However,
following a Crown application for public interest immunity, the trial
judge ordered that the Crown need not disclose anything further on this
point to the defence.
In his summing-up the trial judge made the following observations
(see at [4]):
1. This investigation had clearly been one of the ever-increasing
number of intelligence-led inquiries conducted by the police. As
such, the police had sought the search warrant on the basis of
intelligence information received.
2. There was a general policy of non-disclosure of such intelligence
information under public interest immunity.
3. There existed a clear exception to this policy where disclosure was
necessary to ensure a fair trial for the accused. A hypothetical
example of this would be in the case of a search and seizure of
drugs where the suspect alleged that a particular individual had
‘set them up’ by planting the drugs and then informing the police
of their presence. If it emerged that the information that had
prompted the search had indeed come from that named individ-
ual, then this fact would be liable to be disclosed to the defence.
However, this would create a conflict for the police between the
requirement to disclose the information in order to ensure a fair
306
To continue reading
Request your trial