CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Nicol J, Johnson J)
19 December 2019
Although the transcript of a Crown witness’s interview should have been disclosed to the defence, there was no contradiction in it compared to what was said at trial that was capable of affecting the safety of an offender’s conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition with intent to endanger life.
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Sir Roderick Evans)
29 November 2019
In an indecent assault trial which turned on the comparative credibility of the complainant and the defendant, the judge should have given a full good-character direction in respect of the defendant. His failure to do so, coupled with his direction that the jury should treat the unchallenged evidence of the defendant’s character witnesses with caution, simply because they knew him well, rendered the defendant’s conviction unsafe.
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Nicklin J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
26 November 2019
An individual’s conviction for two counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue were safe. Although there had been failures in the prosecution’s disclosure process, they had not been in bad faith and they had been cured by the time of the trial. The prosecution had also been entitled not to investigate further the allegation that there had been another conspirator, due to insufficient evidence against him.
 UKUT 262 (AAC)
UT (AAC) (Judge Mitchell)
3 September 2019
For the purposes of the qualified exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.30, in respect of information relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, competing public interests were to be assessed according to the circumstances as they stood when the public authority refused a request for information.
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Andrew McFarlane PFD, Simon LJ, Nicola Davies LJ)
31 July 2019
A judge in care proceedings in which the parents were suspected of involvement in terrorism-related activity had correctly followed the approach in C (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Disclosure), Re  Fam. 76 in making an order directing the local authority to disclose to the police a copy of the parents’ position statements and statements of evidence. The Re C approach remained fit for purpose and did not require revision.
CA (NI) (Treacy LJ, Horner J)
1 May 2019
A judge had erred in holding that a public interest immunity application under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 s.8(5) was an abuse of process in a case where a disclosure application had previously been made. The s.8(5) application was not the re-opening of the disclosure application.
SC (Lady Hale PSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Sumption JSC, Lord Carnwath JSC, Lord Hughes JSC)
30 January 2019
The Supreme Court considered the revised statutory schemes for the disclosure of convictions in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Police Act 1997. The schemes were in accordance with the law for the purposes of ECHR art.8 and, with the exception of provisions in relation to the multiple conviction rule and warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders, it was not possible to say that the categories in the schemes were disproportionate.
Ch D (Hildyard J)
25 January 2019
A defendant in civil proceedings was ordered to disclose documents given to it by the Serious Fraud Office which the SFO had obtained during a criminal investigation pursuant to its powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 s.2.
Ch D (Judge David Cooke)
13 November 2018
Permission was granted for documents disclosed in civil proceedings to be produced as evidence in a private prosecution brought by the claimant against the same defendants, based on materially the same facts as the civil claim but including allegations of fraud. There was a public interest in facilitating the prosecution of crimes and it was the prosecutor’s duty to lay before the court all the evidence relevant to the offences charged.
QBD (Martin Griffiths QC)
18 October 2018
The court refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order to an investment firm which was contemplating the private prosecution of two individuals it suspected of using insider information to buy shares in a company shortly before a public announcement increased its share value. The matter was already the subject of civil proceedings where disclosure could be sought, and the firm’s suspicions had been referred to the CPS which was well placed to decide whether to investigate. A Norwich Pharmacal order was not necessary for the firm to obtain justice.