R v Brown (Winston)

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date24 July 1997
Judgment citation (vLex)[1997] UKHL J0724-4
CourtHouse of Lords
Date24 July 1997

[1997] UKHL J0724-4

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Hope of Craighead

Lord Clyde

Lord Hutton



My Lords,


I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal.


My Lords,


I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons he gives I would dismiss the appeal.


My Lords,


The issue in this appeal relates to the duty of the prosecutor at common law to disclose information to the defence. The common law is relevant to this case because the appellant was convicted of his offence on 18th June 1993. As regards things falling to be done after 1 April 1997 the rules as to the disclosure of material by the prosecutor are those set out in Part I of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Section 21(1) of that Act provides that the rules of common law do not apply as regards things falling to be done after that time in relation to the alleged offence. But they continue to apply to all cases where the steps described in section 1 of the Act of 1996 were taken before 1 April 1997 with a view to proceedings against the defendant in a summary trial or on indictment. So the particular issue which we have to consider in this case is still one of general public importance, notwithstanding the coming into force of that Act. It is whether the Crown is under a legal duty to disclose material which is relevant only to the credibility of defence witnesses.


The appellant was convicted on 18 June 1993 in the Crown Court at Manchester before the Recorder of Manchester, Judge Rhys Davies Q.C., of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. The judge gave leave to appeal against the conviction. On 20th May 1994 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Steyn L.J., Owen and Ian Kennedy JJ., dismissed the appeal, for reasons which were set out in a judgment which was delivered on 15th June 1994 ( [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1599). The Court of Appeal certified that a question of general public importance was involved in the decision, namely whether there was a duty to disclose material which was relevant only to the credibility of defence witnesses, but they refused leave to appeal. On 16 April 1996 leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal was given by your Lordships&!!; House. This appeal was heard together with the appeals in Reg. v. Mills and Reg. v. Poole, which are concerned also with the common law duty of disclosure by the prosecutor. The issue in those appeals, although related to that which has to be decided in this case, is a different one and it has been dealt with by your Lordships in a separate judgment. I wish to deal in this speech only with the particular issue with which this case is concerned.


The Facts


In the early hours of 5 July 1992 inside a social club in Moss Side, Manchester, a young woman named Michelle Patrick was stabbed in the leg by a man with a knife or machete. She sustained a deep penetrating wound from which she nearly died and which has left her with a permanent disability. The issue at the trial was whether the person who stabbed her was the defendant. The Crown case against him was based on the evidence of two witnesses, Michelle Patrick and her friend Selina Rankine. They said that they both knew the defendant and that he had stabbed Michelle Patrick inside the club. There was a background of friction between the defendant and Michelle Patrick. The defendant had been wounded in an earlier shooting incident. Michelle Patrick&!!;s boyfriend had been charged with that offence, but he was acquitted. On 5 July 1992, according to the Crown witnesses, Michelle Patrick was attacked by the defendant and another man named Edwards in a car park outside the club. She went inside and telephoned the police. Selina Rankine then joined her and they both went outside. The defendant and Edwards, who were armed respectively with a blade and a truncheon, chased Michelle Patrick back into the club where, according to Michelle Patrick, the defendant stabbed her. Selina Rankine said that she saw the defendant running into the club waving the weapon and she then saw that Michelle Patrick was wounded. It was put to these two witnesses in cross-examination that they were lying and that they were inspired by motives of hostility towards the defendant arising from the previous shooting incident.


The defence case was an alibi, of which the defendant had given notice as required by section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. The defendant gave evidence on his own behalf, and he called a number of witnesses to support his alibi. He said that on the night in question he was at a party which had been organised by a Mrs. Morris. It was held about five minutes drive away from the club. Mrs. Morris and her daughter Michelle Morris both said that the defendant was at the party at the relevant time. Edwards—the other man who was said to have been involved in the attack on Michelle Patrick—also supported the alibi. Two other witnesses were called for the defence. It is their evidence which has given rise to the question in this appeal.


The first was a man named Lawrence Gordon. He was the boyfriend of Michelle Morris, the daughter of Mrs. Morris. He said that he took the defendant to the party at Mrs. Morris&!!;s house at 9.30 p.m. staying until 4.00 a.m., and that they did not leave in the course of the evening. It was put to him in cross-examination that he had been spoken to by a police officer about the defendant&!!;s whereabouts at the time of the offence and that he had told him that he was too drunk to recall. He accepted that he may have said this, but he explained that he would have done so to get rid of the police.


The other was a man named Seaburt Pinnock. He had originally given a statement to the police in which he had directly implicated the defendant in the earlier part of the attack on Michelle Patrick. Subsequently he told the police that he wished to withdraw his statement as he was no longer willing to assist the Crown. His statement was then withdrawn from the committal file. It was however served on the defence. The defendant&!!;s solicitor interviewed him, and he was called to give evidence for the defence at the trial. This was done in the knowledge of his earlier statement to the police. Pinnock gave evidence to the effect that he did not see the earlier part of the incident, but that he did see the two attackers in the club. He said that the defendant was not one of the two attackers. It was put to him in cross-examination that when he had called at the police station to withdraw his statement he had said that he was doing so because he had received threats. He accepted that he had mentioned threats, but he said that he had ignored them and that he had wanted to withdraw his statement because it was inaccurate.


The Issues in the Court of Appeal


At the hearing of the appeal three grounds of appeal were pursued. The first ground related to the evidential status of Pinnock&!!;s statement to the police in which he had implicated the defendant in the stabbing. The Court of Appeal held that this matter had been dealt with adequately by the judge in his summing up, and the point has not been raised again in this appeal. The other two grounds raised issues of non-disclosure concerning the evidence of the defence witnesses Gordon and Pinnock. The complaint was made that the Crown had failed to disclose information to the defence which tended to reflect on the credibility of these two witnesses. In Gordon&!!;s case this was that he had told the police that he was drunk and was thus unable to comment on the defendant&!!;s alibi. In Pinnock&!!;s case it was that when he withdrew his statement implicating the defendant he told the police that he had been threatened. Counsel argued that this information was relevant to the credibility of material witnesses and disclosable, in the same way as information relating to the credibility of witnesses called by the Crown, such as their previous convictions, was disclosable. He submitted that non-disclosure of this information amounted to a material irregularity in the course of the trial, rendering the conviction unsafe and unsatisfactory.


Much of the discussion in the Court of Appeal was taken up with an examination of the Attorney-General&!!;s Guidelines of 1981 which Crown Counsel said protected the information from disclosure: see Practice Note (Criminal Evidence: Unused Material) [1982] 1 All E.R. 734. But, as Steyn L.J. explained [1994] 1 W.L.R. 1599, 1604F-1606C, time has moved on since these guidelines were issued. They served a useful purpose in the past, but they did not have the force of law and their value as a set of instructions to prosecutors has largely been eroded by major legal developments regarding the common law duty of disclosure. It is not necessary to dwell on this aspect of the case. In practice, no doubt as a result of Steyn L.J.&!!;s carefully worded criticisms, the 1981 Guidelines are no longer relied on by prosecutors. They no longer appear in the current edition of Archbold&!!;s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, and Mr. Shorrock for the Crown did not seek to resurrect this part of the argument. So I can concentrate on the common law duty of disclosure which, as Steyn L.J. said, at p. 1606C-D, provides the framework of the rules which govern disclosure by the Crown.


The Common...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • Re Euro Bank Corporation
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 22 January 2002
    ...Dallison v. Caffery, [1965] 1 Q.B. 348; [1964] 2 All E.R. 610, followed. (3) R. v. Brown, [1998] A.C. 267; [1997] 4 All E.R. 769; [1998] 1 Cr. App. R. 66, dicta of Lord Hope of Craighead applied. (4) R. v. BryantUNK(1946), 31 Cr. App. R. 146, referred to. (5) R. v. HennesseyUNK(1978), 68 Cr......
  • Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening)
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 146 (A): referred to Putter v Provincial Insurance Co Ltd and Another 1963 (4) SA 771 (W): dictum at 772F - G applied E R v Brown [1997] 3 All ER 769 (HL): dictum at 778 R v Hall (1979) 28 ALR 107: dictum at 112 approved R v Riekert 1954 (4) SA 254 (SWA): dictum at 261D-E approved R v Sa......
  • Siti Aisyah v PP
    • Malaysia
    • Court of Appeal (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • O'Callaghan v Mahon
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 30 March 2007
    ...CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT 20.12.1993 WILSON v POLICE 1992 2 NZLR 533 DPP v KELLY 1987 IR 596 3 FREWEN 295 1987 6 1565 R v BROWN (WINSTON) 1998 AC 367 R v WARD 1993 2 AER 577 1993 1 WLR 619 R v HENNESSY 1978 68 CAR 419 O'H (M) v DPP UNREP O'SULLIVAN 25.3.1999 2000/20/7719 ABRAHAMSON, DWYER & F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 7-4, December 2003
    • 1 December 2003
    ...v Bray, unreported, 31 July 1998 ... 44R v Brook [2003] EWCA Crim 951 .. 206R v Brown (1989) Cr App R 97 ........... 78R v Brown [1998] AC 367 .................. 109R v Brown (Winston) [1994] 1 WLR 1599.........................................................122R v Broyles [1991] 3 SCR 595 ......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice. The Rhetoric Meets The Reality Part Three
    • 15 June 2010
    ...R. v. Brooks, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 237, 2000 SCC 11 ............................................................. 94 R. v. Brown (Winston), [1998] A.C. 367 (H.L.) ............................................................. 159 R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474, [1996] S.C.J. No. 27 ..................
  • Case Commentaries
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 14-1, January 2010
    • 1 January 2010
    ...with the equality of arms principle implicit in Article 6 (ibid. at [70])and approved it (ibid. at [39]) notwithstanding that in RvBrown [1998] AC 367,which predated the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, the House ofLords had ruled that the Crown in England has no legal duty t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT