Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Michael Fordham (instructed by Bindmans) for the Claimant David Lock for the South Staffordshire NHS Trust Roderick Henderson for The Crown Prosecution Service Hearing dates: 3rd July 2006 ____________________
The Crown Court is a public authority, and it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right � section 6(1) of the 1998 Act.
(a) Which persons or class of person with Article 8 rights in respect of documents should be given notice? It is evident from the present case that a child victim of alleged sexual abuse who is to be a prosecution witness should be given notice of an application for disclosure of her medical and psychiatric records. Does this extend to all medical records, including those of adults? I cannot at the moment see why not. And to education records and social services documents? And to tax documents in the hands of an accountant? And so forth.
(b) If a line is not clearly drawn by a rule, who should decide whether a person is to be given notice. Such decisions should not, I think, be left to the applicant or to court officers. I think that the answer may have to be a judge.
(c) By what mechanism and at what time should the decision to give notice be made? Before the witness summons is served or later? If later, by what mechanism is the disclosure to be sufficiently delayed to enable the recipient to act upon the notice?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.