R v Preston (Stephen) ; R v Preston (Zena) ; R v Clarke ; R v Austen ; R v Salter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1992 |
| Date | 06 May 1992 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Woolf, Mr Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice Hidden
Criminal procedure - disclosure - conflict of interests - prosecutor's duty
Prosecuting counsel had the responsibility to ensure that no injustice occurred in any conflict between the two public interests of preventing the disclosure of matters surrounding telephone interceptions, under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, and in ensuring that a defendant was not unjustly convicted. In such a conflict, the public interest in seeking to avoid a miscarriage of justice had to prevail.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in dismissing appeals by Stephen Preston, Nicholas Henry Clarke, Anthony Austen, Jeremy Salter and Zena Preston against their convictions on February 14 and 15, 1991 at Portsmouth Crown Court (Judge Griffiths and a jury) of conspiracy to evade the prohibition on the importation of cannabis resin in contravention of section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Acts 1971 and section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Section 1 of the 1985 Act provides: "(1) … a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence…
"(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence … if (a) the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by the secretary of state …"
Section 2 provides: "(2) The secretary of state shall not issue a warrant … unless he considers that the warrant is necessary … (b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime;…"
Section 9 provides: "(1) In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case) tends to suggest (a) that an offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed … or (b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued …"
Mr Sydney Kentridge, QC, who did not appear below, and Mr Simon Stafford-Michael for Stephen Preston; Mr Lionel Lassman for Clarke; Mr Brendan Keaney for Austen; Mr Michel Massih for Salter; Mr Roderick Price for Zena Preston, all assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals; Mr Alan Moses, QC, who did not appear below, and Mr John Aspinall for the Crown.
LORD JUSTICE WOOLF, giving the judgment of the court, said that the trial and conviction of the appellants followed intensive surveillance by the police. During the course of that surveillance a warrant was issued permitting telephone calls to be intercepted.
Those telephone interceptions and the existence of an informer resulted in protracted argument taking place during the course...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgans v Director of Public Prosecution (pet. all.)
...when the calls were intercepted by the police. 35 The question as to the effect of section 9 was raised again in Reg v. Preston (1992) 95 Cr. App. R. 355, which was heard in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) just a few weeks after the decision by a differently constituted court in Eff......
- Maycock v Attorney General and Another; and related appeals
-
R v P (Telephone Intercepts: Admissibility of Evidence)
... ... law, they relied particularly upon R v Preston [1994] 2 AC 130 and Morgans v DPP [2000] ... ...
-
R v Chalkley ; R v Jeffries
...charged. In the case of the old form, it was commonly said, in reliance on a passage from the judgment of Woolf LJ in R v. Preston (1992) 95 Cr App R 355, at 381, drawing on an observation of Robert Goff LJ in R v. Hunt (1986) 82 Cr App R 244, at 249, that it might also do so where it was "......