London SE1 OBJ
B e f o r e :
|R E G I N A|
|- v -|
|RENATA ANDREWS AND OTHERS|
(A Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4036 Fax: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR M. NEOFYTOU appeared on behalf of the Defendant RENATA ANDREWS
Mr C. WELLS appeared on behalf of the Defendant SIOBHAN WILLIAMS
Mr B. SQUIRREL appeared on behalf of the Defendant ASA HARRIS
Ms C. WIGGETT appeared on behalf of the Defendant DANIEL KOUSSOU
Crown Copyright ©
Judge Murphy: I have today corrected and revised this ruling, which was given extempore, to explain my reasoning in more detail, but without changing the outcome or the basis of the ruling.
"Active case management at the PCMH is essential to reduce the number of ineffective and cracked trials and delays during the trial to resolve legal issues. The effectiveness of a PCMH hearing in a contested case depends in large measure upon preparation by all concerned and upon the presence of the trial advocate who is able to make decisions and give the court the assistance which the trial advocate could be expected to give."
The prosecution's duty of disclosure is a continuing one. The Crown is under a continuing obligation to disclose information that may undermine its case or assist the defence, and particularly when so requested in a defence case statement.
"Had Veale J known that [the breach] was the result of a deliberate decision based upon the tactical value of surprise I regard it as inconceivable that he would have ruled in favour of admitting the statement. But … I go so far as to say that, even if he had, such an attitude ought not to be countenanced by this court. A suitor who deliberately flouts the rules has no right to ask the court to exercise in his favour a discretionary indulgence created by those very same rules. Furthermore, a judge who, to his knowledge, finds himself confronted by such a situation, would not, as I think, be acting judicially if he nevertheless exercised his discretion in favour of the recalcitrant suitor. The rules are there to be respected, and those who defy them should not be indulged or excused. Slackness is one thing; deliberate disobedience another. The former may be overlooked; the latter never, even though, as here, it derives from a mistaken zeal on the client’s behalf. To tolerate it would be dangerous to justice."
Although Edmund Davies LJ was speaking of a quite different set of rules, and in a civil case, his words are even more apposite when criminal liability is at stake. In any event, I would in the circumstances exclude the evidence under section 78, holding that to admit it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that I ought not to do so.
We hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.
Signed on behalf of WordWave International Limited
26 November 2013