Grant v R

Grant v R

The court held that the deliberate and unlawful interception of privileged solicitor-client communications by the police in the course of the investigation constituted a serious abuse of process, undermining the rule of law and the integrity of the criminal justice system. This justified a stay of proceedings regardless of whether the appellant suffered demonstrable prejudice, and rendered the conviction unsafe.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Grant; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Legal Professional Privilege, Covert Surveillance, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Abuse of Process Legal Professional Privilege Covert Surveillance Right to Fair Trial

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 1 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Grant

Appellant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police's covert recording of privileged solicitor-client conversations rendered the proceedings an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether a stay of proceedings was required in the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the defence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to stay the indictment despite findings of deliberate police misconduct

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the deliberate and unlawful interception of privileged solicitor-client communications by the police in the course of the investigation constituted a serious abuse of process, undermining the rule of law and the integrity of the criminal justice system. This justified a stay of proceedings regardless of whether the appellant suffered demonstrable prejudice, and rendered the conviction unsafe.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed

Orders

  • Conviction quashed due to abuse of process
  • Leave to appeal on grounds 4 and 5 refused