R v Latimer

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
Judgment Date01 January 1992
Date01 January 1992
CourtCourt of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
(C.A., N.I.)
R
and
Latimer

- Prosecution evidence -Privilege - Public interest immunity - Admissions and confession - Issue as to admissibility - Whether police interviews properly conducted - Allegations of improper police conduct - Investigation followed by report to the Secretary of State - Application by appellants for copies of relevant documents -Whether document and report of the investigation should be provided to the appellants - Whether production of the documents necessary and expedient in the interests of justice - Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act, 1980, s. 25 (1).

The four appellants were charged with murder. At their trial the Crown relied on written confessions which the appellants had made to interviewing detective officers. The appellants alleged that some of the officers who interviewed them had behaved improperly and also that their confessions were inadmissible or unreliable because some of the officers had not conducted the interviews in accordance with proper police practice. The appellants were convicted and appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal but continued to allege impropriety by the interviewing officers. Consequently the Secretary of State authorised an investigation into the allegations and the officers in question were interviewed. The investigation disclosed that there were some irregularities in the conduct of the appellants' interviews, and a report to that effect was sent to the Secretary of State and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Secretary of State thereafter referred the appellants' cases to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 14 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act, 1980. Three of the appellants applied pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Act for orders that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Royal Ulster Constabulary produce a number of specific documents relating to the investigation, including the report, on the grounds that they were necessary or expedient in the interests of justice. The respondents opposed the application on the grounds, inter alia, of public interest immunity. Held - (1) While an accused was not entitled to obtain discovery of documents in a prosecution by the Crown in the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal was given a wider power on appeal by s. 25 where production was expedient and in the interests of justice and necessary for the just determination of the case. In a case such as the present, involving allegations of malpractice and irregularities by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • DPP v Murphy
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 21 January 2005
    ...- Admissions made by accused - Alteration of notes of garda interview - Whether surviving garda evidence admissible - R v Latimer [1992] NI 45; R v Armstrong (Unrep, English CA (Crim Div),19/10/1989); R v Mcllkenny [1992] 2 All ER 417 and R v Silcott (TLR, 9/12/1991)considered and R v Galb......
  • R v Harper
    • United Kingdom
    • Crown Court (Northern Ireland)
    • 1 January 1994
    ...v. WardUNK [1993] 2 All E.R 577, R. v. DavisUNK [1993] 2 All E.R. 643 and R. v. KeaneUNK [1994] 2 All E.R. 478 applied. R. v. LatimerDNI [1992] N.I. 45 and R. v. FoxfordDNI [1974] N.I. 181 not followed. Per curiam. When the criminal trial is being conducted by a judge without a jury and the......
  • Hksar v Chan Kau Tai
    • Hong Kong
    • Court of Appeal (Hong Kong)
    • 12 September 2005
    ...in the interest of justice. Mr Blanchflower has referred me to R v Callaghan and Others [1988] 1 ALL ER 257 and R v Latimer and other [1992] NI 45 which show the amplitude of the court’s power under section 83V. Here, given the admitted non-disclosure, the court as well as the applicant, ar......

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