5 Jan 2023
Application refused because the subject materials are highly sensitive pornographic images of a vulnerable underage complainant, are not evidence in the present case, the defence failed to show any genuine relevance to the defence of denial or misidentification beyond speculation, and disclosure would amount to an impermissible fishing expedition outweighed by the duty to protect the witness.
21 Nov 2019
The SFC has standing to assert PII and LPP. After in‑chambers inspection and application of the R v H balancing test, emails in Categories A and B (internal senior SFC deliberations and communications with FSTB that related to representations made to the SFC) must be disclosed in full to prosecution and defence because their relevance and the gravity of the criminal charge outweighs the public interest in non‑disclosure; emails in Category C (media/public relations internal views) are irrelevant and withheld; emails claimed under LPP are protected and not disclosable. Appointment of a special…
10 Oct 2003
The Court allowed the appeal: recipients of unused material are not barred from using material that has been made public by being referred to in open court and recorded in judgments or transcripts; on the facts the plaintiffs could, and should be given retrospective leave and permitted to re-amend their statement of claim to pursue a fraud-based challenge to prior judicial review judgments, including pleading vicarious liability; the strike-out and refusal of retrospective leave were reversed and costs orders below set aside.
19 May 2000
Application dismissed: Inc. failed to establish legal advice privilege because the investigation and communications were commissioned by Far East and made by Far East employees (Inc. was not shown to be the client); alternatively, any privilege that might have arisen was waived by production to the SFC under the s.33(4) process and the terms of the disclosure and the statutory regime permitting disclosure for criminal proceedings.