B & G, R. v Re Interlocutory Application,

B & G, R. v Re Interlocutory Application,

The order restraining lawyers from disclosing inadvertently disclosed sensitive material to their clients was not just or equitable in the circumstances, as it was too late to restore the status quo, would undermine the lawyer-client relationship, and create unfairness among co-defendants. The trial judge had jurisdiction to make ancillary orders but erred in making this particular order and in concluding that counsel could properly continue to act while so restrained.

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 / Interlocutory Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Public Interest Immunity, Disclosure, Client Lawyer Confidentiality, Trial Management, Contempt of Court
Criminal Law Procedure Public Interest Immunity Disclosure Client Lawyer Confidentiality 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Appellant

G

Appellant

Crown

Respondent

Other three defendants

Interveners

City of London Police

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to make an order restraining lawyers from disclosing inadvertently disclosed sensitive material to their clients
  2. 2 Whether such an order was appropriate and just in the circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The order restraining lawyers from disclosing inadvertently disclosed sensitive material to their clients was not just or equitable in the circumstances, as it was too late to restore the status quo, would undermine the lawyer-client relationship, and create unfairness among co-defendants. The trial judge had jurisdiction to make ancillary orders but erred in making this particular order and in concluding that counsel could properly continue to act while so restrained.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The trial judge's order of 19th May is quashed, but remains in force until further submissions and arrangements are made regarding those in the know.
  • Draft questions for possible certification to the House of Lords to be submitted by 10 o'clock the following morning.