Disclosure Obligations Of The Prosecution
🔹 What is Disclosure in Criminal Law?
Disclosure refers to the prosecution's duty to provide the defense with relevant material in its possession during the course of a criminal investigation and prosecution. This includes evidence that may:
Support the prosecution case,
Weaken the prosecution case,
Strengthen the defence case, or
Otherwise be relevant to the fairness of the trial.
🔹 Legal Basis (UK Example)
In England and Wales, the main legal framework is:
Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA),
CPIA Code of Practice,
Human Rights Act 1998, particularly Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial).
Key Principles:
Initial Disclosure: The prosecution must provide any material on which it intends to rely.
Continuing Duty: Disclosure is ongoing throughout the trial process.
Material to be disclosed includes evidence that may undermine the prosecution or assist the defence.
Public Interest Immunity (PII) can be claimed for sensitive material, but courts decide on disclosure.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Prosecution Disclosure
1. R v. Ward [1993] 1 WLR 619
Facts:
Judith Ward was convicted of IRA bombings. Years later, it was discovered that the prosecution withheld key evidence, including psychiatric reports and forensic doubts.
Issue:
Was the non-disclosure of crucial exculpatory material a miscarriage of justice?
Held:
Yes. The conviction was quashed due to serious prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose relevant and material evidence.
Importance:
A landmark in British legal history, this case emphasized that withholding material can lead to wrongful conviction and breaches the right to a fair trial.
2. R v. Davis, Johnson and Rowe [2001] 1 Cr App R 8
Facts:
The defendants were convicted of conspiracy to cause explosions. Their appeal was based on failure of the prosecution to disclose intelligence material.
Issue:
Whether the PII process properly balanced national security with fair trial rights.
Held:
The House of Lords clarified that courts must review PII claims, not the prosecution alone, and non-disclosure must not compromise the fairness of the trial.
Importance:
Strengthened judicial control over PII applications, ensuring transparency and fairness in national security contexts.
3. R v. Makin [2004] EWCA Crim 1607
Facts:
The prosecution failed to disclose a note that might have cast doubt on the credibility of a key prosecution witness.
Issue:
Did the failure to disclose this note result in an unsafe conviction?
Held:
Yes. The court held that the withheld material could have materially affected the outcome of the trial.
Importance:
Reiterated that even seemingly minor items can be vital, and prosecutors must not assess relevance too narrowly.
4. R v. H and C [2004] UKHL 3
Facts:
Defendants were accused of terrorist offences. The prosecution sought to withhold material under public interest grounds.
Issue:
How should courts manage sensitive information in a way that balances fairness with state secrecy?
Held:
The House of Lords set out detailed guidance on managing PII claims, including the use of special counsel.
Importance:
Clarified that disclosure must ensure fair trial rights, even where national security is at stake, and offered procedural mechanisms to handle secrecy.
5. R v. Olu [2010] EWCA Crim 2975
Facts:
The prosecution failed to disclose CCTV footage that supported the defendant’s alibi.
Issue:
Was the conviction unsafe due to this omission?
Held:
Yes. The conviction was quashed due to failure to disclose evidence that could have assisted the defence.
Importance:
Showed that failure to disclose exculpatory evidence breaches Article 6 (ECHR) and undermines public confidence in justice.
6. R v. Allen [2017] EWCA Crim 44
Facts:
The Crown failed to disclose mobile phone records showing the complainant had lied.
Issue:
Did the non-disclosure render the conviction unsafe?
Held:
Yes. The conviction was overturned because the withheld evidence undermined the credibility of the main witness.
Importance:
Stressed that credibility evidence is critical, and failure to disclose it can vitiate the entire trial.
7. R v. Hamilton [2020] EWCA Crim 266
Facts:
The defendant appealed after learning post-trial that the prosecution had not disclosed certain forensic test results.
Issue:
Could the results have reasonably affected the jury’s verdict?
Held:
Yes. The evidence had potential to raise reasonable doubt and its non-disclosure was a breach of duty.
Importance:
Reaffirmed the importance of continuing disclosure obligations, not just initial ones.
📊 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Key Ruling | Legal Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ward (1993) | Withheld expert evidence | Conviction quashed | Landmark for miscarriage of justice |
| Davis & Others (2001) | PII and intelligence | Courts must oversee secrecy | Fairness over state secrecy |
| Makin (2004) | Witness credibility note | Conviction unsafe | Relevance assessed broadly |
| H and C (2004) | Terrorism and disclosure | Guidelines for PII | Balanced fairness and national security |
| Olu (2010) | CCTV not disclosed | Conviction overturned | Duty to disclose defence-supportive evidence |
| Allen (2017) | Mobile records omitted | Unsafe conviction | Emphasised evidence of credibility |
| Hamilton (2020) | Forensic test withheld | Appeal allowed | Highlighted continuing duty to disclose |
🔍 Key Legal Principles
Disclosure is a continuing obligation from investigation through to trial and appeal.
Relevance must be judged broadly — anything capable of assisting the defence must be disclosed.
Withholding evidence can cause miscarriages of justice, regardless of intent.
Public Interest Immunity (PII) must be weighed by the court, not left to prosecutorial discretion.
Failure to disclose can breach Article 6 of the ECHR — right to a fair trial.
⚖️ Conclusion
The prosecution's duty of disclosure is not optional — it is a constitutional safeguard that upholds the fairness of the criminal justice process. Courts have repeatedly stressed that:
Transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness are vital in criminal trials.
Prosecution must err on the side of disclosure — if in doubt, disclose or let the court decide.
Non-disclosure undermines public confidence in justice and can invalidate lawful convictions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments