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.
Fairness may require the prosecutor to make disclosure beyond the strict demands of the 1996 Act.
On the applicant's second ground there are two parts. On the first part, namely that the DPP refusal of disclosure is contrary to the DPP obligation to disclose prosecution evidence, the police notebook entries are not evidence relied on by the prosecution. On the second part, namely that disclosure is required by section 3 when read compatibly with Article 6, I have found no incompatibility with Article 6 and therefore no need to interpret section 3 so as to require disclosure.
On the applicant's third ground, namely that the RM was wrong to hold that he could not order disclosure, I find that disclosure is a matter for the opinion of the prosecutor and the RM has no jurisdiction to order disclosure.
On the applicant's fourth ground, namely that the prosecutor had a duty to examine the notebook entries, I am satisfied that the prosecutor had no such duty in the absence of some basis for considering that the test for primary prosecution disclosure might have been satisfied or that disclosure might otherwise be required in the interests of the fairness of the criminal proceedings.
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.