B & G, R. v Re Interlocutory Application, [2004] EWCA Crim 1368 (27 May 2004)

B & G, R. v Re Interlocutory Application, [2004] EWCA Crim 1368 (27 May 2004)

The trial judge's order restraining use and dissemination of inadvertently disclosed sensitive material by defence counsel was unjust and inappropriate because it undermined the lawyer-client relationship, could not restore the status quo, and it is for counsel, not the court, to determine if they can continue to act. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the judge's order was quashed.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Crim 1368
Parties
Appellant: B; Appellant: G; Respondent: Crown; Interveners: Other three defendants; Intervener: City of London Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application Under Section 9(11) Criminal Justice Act 1987
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judge's order quashed (with effect deferred pending further submissions).
Legal Topics
Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Legal Professional Privilege, Trial Management, Contempt of Court
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Public Interest Immunity Disclosure Legal Professional Privilege Trial Management Contempt of Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

G

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Other three defendants

Interveners

City of London Police

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Interlocutory Application Under Section 9(11) Criminal Justice Act 1987

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the trial judge's order restricting use and dissemination of inadvertently disclosed sensitive material
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to make the ancillary order restraining use and dissemination of the material
  3. 3 Whether the order restraining use and dissemination of the material by defence counsel was appropriate and just

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's order restraining use and dissemination of inadvertently disclosed sensitive material by defence counsel was unjust and inappropriate because it undermined the lawyer-client relationship, could not restore the status quo, and it is for counsel, not the court, to determine if they can continue to act. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the judge's order was quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judge's order quashed (with effect deferred pending further submissions).

Orders

  • Draft questions for possible certification to the House of Lords to be submitted by 10 o'clock the next morning.
  • The trial judge's order in relation to those in the know to remain in force until further order.