R v Snaresbrook Crown Court, ex parte DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Year | 1987 |
| Date | 1987 |
Police - Powers - Special procedure material - Access to legal aid application form - Police investigating criminal offence - Police suspecting that application form to bring civil proceedings contained false statements - Whether application form item subject to legal privilege - Whether application form held with intention of furthering criminal purpose -
On 8 November 1984 A. was arrested and charged with, inter alia, assault. He subsequently pleaded guilty to that charge at Stratford Magistrates' Court and was fined. On 14 June 1985 A. complained through his solicitors that at the time of his arrest he had been assaulted by a named police officer. When the complaint was investigated A. alleged that his nose had been broken during the assault. A. made an application for legal aid in order to bring an action for assault against the police. Subsequent police inquiries revealed that his nose had been broken two days before the incident of 8 November. A. was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice, and the prosecution requested production by the area office of The Law Society of A.'s legal aid application form. The office declined to produce the form, and the Director of Public Prosecutions sought an order under section 9 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the ground that the form was special procedure material. The circuit judge at the Crown Court held that the form was privileged within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Act,F1 and that it was not held by The Law Society with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose within the meaning of section 10(2), and he declined to order production.
On an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for judicial review: —
Held, dismissing the application, that since A. was the client of a professional legal adviser and the legal aid application form was a communication between him and the area office of The Law Society made in contemplation of and for the purpose of legal proceedings, it was within the definition of items subject to legal privilege in section 10(1) of the Act of 1984; that The Law Society held the form for the purpose of deciding whether to grant legal aid to pursue a civil claim, and not with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose and that the legal privilege was not, therefore, removed by section 10(2) of the Act; and that, accordingly, the form was not “special procedure material” within the meaning of the Act (post, pp. 1058E–G, 1059D–F, 1060B, E–G).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Glidewell L.J.:
Banque Keyser Ullmann S.A. v. Skandia (U.K.) Insurance Co. Ltd. [
Reg. v. Cox and Railton (
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Reg. v. Peterborough Justice, Ex parte Hicks [
APPLICATION for judicial review.
By an application dated 25 May 1987 the applicant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, sought judicial review of a decision of Judge Halnan at Snaresbrook Crown Court on 15 May 1987 whereby he had refused an application by P.C. Stratton under section 9 of and Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for access to special procedure material, namely, a legal aid application form completed by Mushtaq Mohammed Akhoonjee in connection with an application for legal aid to bring an action against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Judge Halnan held that the form was not special procedure material because it was subject to legal privilege within section 10(1)(b) of the Act of 1984, and was not held “with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose” within section 10(2). The applicant sought a declaration that the form was special procedure material as defined by sections 10 and 14 of the Act and mandamus directing the judge to reconsider the decision.
The grounds on which relief was sought were, inter alia, (1) that the judge erred in holding that the legal aid application form was subject to legal privilege; (2) that the judge was wrong in holding that the form was not held “with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose” within section 10(2); and (3) that the judge erred in holding that the intention of The Law Society was material to the question whether the form was held with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Glidewell L.J.
Clive Nicholls Q.C. and John Nutting for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Duncan Matheson for The Law Society.
Anthony Shaw for Mushtaq Mohammed Akhoonjee.
10 July. GLIDEWELL L.J. read the following judgment. This is an application for judicial review: that is to say, an order of certiorari to quash a decision of Judge Halnan sitting in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook on 15 May 1987 to the effect that the material the subject matter of an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions is not “special procedure material” as defined in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; or, alternatively, for a declaration that it is such material and an order of mandamus to require the judge to reconsider his decision on the ground that it is in the public interest for the material to be produced.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 introduced a new procedure by which a prosecuting authority may gain access to documentary and other material for the purposes of investigation well before any question of trial. By section 9(1) of the Act it is provided that a constable may gain access to special procedure material for the purposes of a criminal investigation by making an application under Schedule 1 to that Act and in accordance with that...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Francis & Francis
...549; [1987] 3 All E.R. 1025, D.C. Reg. v. Snaresbrook Crown Court, Ex parte Director of Public PRosecutions [1987] 3 W.L.R. 1054; [1988] 1 All E.R. 315, The following additional cases were cited in argument: Bullivant v. Attorney-General for Victoria [1901] A.C. 196, H.L.(E.) Rank Film Dist......
-
Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP
...is a prima facie case which may turn out on full investigation to be incorrect and (2) it may be unfair in what Glidewell LJ in the Snaresbrook case [1988] QB 532, 538 called the ordinary run of cases (such as cross-allegations of assault or drivers falsely saying they were driving on the c......
-
Karam Salah Al Din Awni Al Sadeq v Dechert LLP
...exception does not apply to what Glidewell LJ referred to as the “ordinary run of cases” in R v Snaresbrook Crown Court Ex pte DPP [1988] QB 532 at pp. 537–8. Such privilege is not prevented from attaching merely because the solicitor is engaged to conduct litigation by putting forward an ......
-
JSC BTA Bank (Claimant) Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others (Defendants) Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others (Respondents)
...by virtue of the original fraud or crime: see R v Cox and Railton (at p 175); ( O'Rourke v Darbishire [1920] AC 581, 622–3); R v Snaresbrook Crown Court, ( ex parte DPP [1988] 1 QB 532, 537); and Francis and Francis (at p 397). But none of those cases dealt with the situation where a client......
