Trutch, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 1750 (25th July, 2001)

Trutch, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 1750 (25th July, 2001)

Settlement affidavits are not protected by privilege or confidentiality; their admission in evidence is not unfair or an abuse of process; public interest in prosecution outweighs any settlement confidentiality; trial judge's discretion under section 78 PACE was properly exercised.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Crim 1750
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Appellant: Stephen Anthony Trutch; Appellant: Jeanne Mary Trutch
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Rulings
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Privilege, Confidentiality, Abuse of Process, Admissibility of Evidence, Self Incrimination, Public Interest
Criminal Law Evidence Civil Procedure Privilege Confidentiality Abuse of Process Admissibility of Evidence Self Incrimination +1 more

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Stephen Anthony Trutch

Appellant

Jeanne Mary Trutch

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Interlocutory Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether settlement affidavits are protected by common interest privilege
  2. 2 Whether affidavits are subject to confidentiality or implied undertaking
  3. 3 Whether admission of affidavits is unfair or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Settlement affidavits are not protected by privilege or confidentiality; their admission in evidence is not unfair or an abuse of process; public interest in prosecution outweighs any settlement confidentiality; trial judge's discretion under section 78 PACE was properly exercised.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Affidavits admitted in evidence
  • Criminal proceedings against appellants to continue