R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746
Citation:R v Keane [1994] 1 WLR 746
Rule of thumb 1:In litigation, how do you get the opposing side to provide you with a document/information? There are 2 parts, (a) You have to state a fact from it which could be inferred, and (b) you then have to refer to a source of law or factual scenario which could support the case.
Rule of thumb 2:What evidence has to be provided by the Crown to the defence? (a) All evidence which is relevant, (b) all evidence which is possibly relevant, and (c) it only does not have to provide evidence which it is fanciful & not real to suggest useful facts could be inferred from it.
Judgment:
Public Interest Immunity Certificates for the protection of informants must be used only carefully. The Crown must specify the purpose of the public interest immunity certificate. The principles on disclosure in Ward are not limited to scientific evidence. The great principle is that of open justice: ‘If the disputed material may prove the defendant’s innocence or avoid a miscarriage of justice, then the balance comes down resoundingly in favour of disclosing it. But how is it to be determined whether and to what extent the material which the Crown wish to withhold may be of assistance to the defence? First, it is for the prosecution to put before the court only those documents which it regards as material but wishes to withhold. As to what documents are ‘material’ we would adopt the test suggested in [Melvin].’ and ‘[Material evidence is that] which can be seen on a sensible appraisal by the prosecution: (a) to be relevant or possibly relevant to an issue in the case; (b) to raise or possibly raise a new issue whose relevance is not apparent from the evidence the prosecution proposes to use; (c) to hold out a real, as opposed to a fanciful, prospect of providing a lead on evidence which goes to (a) or (b).’
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.