Recent Judicial Decisions
| Published date | 01 October 1986 |
| Date | 01 October 1986 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8605900409 |
| Author | John Wood |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR SIR JOHN WOOD,
CB.E.,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspodent
of
the Police Journal.
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
IN HIDING
R. v, Rankine [1986] 2 W.L.R. 1075 Court of Appeal
The accused was convicted in the Crown Court of unlawfully
supplying acontrolled drug to another contrary to s. 4(3)(a) of the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He had been observed by police officers
engaging in 10 transactions outside a shop in Railton Road,
Brixton. Observations were kept from a concealed post. On making
the arrest, the accused was found to have in his possession cannabis
and some £274.
The prosecution asked, in the absence of the jury, that the
location of the observation should not be disclosed. The reasons
given were to preserve its usefulness and to protect those co-
operating in its provision. Obviously the defence would normally
wish to test the weight of the evidence of observation by querying
distances, sight limits and so on. The Judge ruled that, although
questions could be asked, the police witnesses would not be forced
to answer if to do so would embarrass the co-operators. Some
questions were answered. The distance was said to be about 65
yards from the shop and it was disclosed that an image intensifier
was used. But the general approach enunciated by the trial Judge
was challenged and formed the basis of the appeal.
The protection of police sources has been permitted for a long
time. Mann, J., pointed out
that
in
Attorney
Generalv. Briant (1846)
15 M &W 169, the protective rule was recognized as being at least
50 years old. Informers were protected from having their identity
disclosed .in court. In the later case, Marks v. Beyfus [1890] 25
Q.B.D. 494, the rule was reaffirmed as applying to public
prosecutions. It is based on public policy and is a rule of law, not
discretion, for the Judge. It does not apply, however, according to
Lord Esher, M.R., in the case where the Judge believes it is
necessary to disclose to show the accused's innocence.
The rule was most recently considered in R. v. Hennessey (1979)
68 Cr. App. R. 419. It was affirmed, as was the exception where it is
information needed to protect the liberty of the subject. However,
Lawton, L.J., pointed out that the accused had to establish the
good reason for the exception being exercised.
In this case the person to be protected was not strictly an
informer. He was a citizen who had allowed his premises to be used
by the police. The Court of Appeal had no hesitation in equating
the one with the other. They regarded the cases as indistinguishable,
so the appeal was dismissed.
October 1986 341
To continue reading
Request your trial