[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Maame, R. v [2000] EWCA Crim 3534 (12 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2000/3534.html Cite as: [2000] EWCA Crim 3534

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2
		12th June 2000

1. MR JUSTICE BRIAN SMEDLEY: On 11th October 1999 at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames the applicant was convicted by a majority verdict of one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a lady called Christine Galbraith. There was also an allegation made that she had assaulted, occasioning actual bodily harm, another lady, called Karen Jakes (?). But in respect of that count she was acquitted.
2. The application for leave to appeal is based on what are said to be the deficiencies of the Crown Prosecution Service in complying with the duties which are imposed on them not only by the general law, but also in particular by their obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. They are particularised in the grounds of appeal in this way. There were apparently computer-aided dispatch messages which were not disclosed until after the civilian prosecution witnesses had given evidence. At that stage the Crown, having had the trial adjourned initially so that they could see the police report, decided that they were not going to disclose the material which was contained in the computer-aided dispatch messages. Those, say the applicant, could have impacted substantially upon the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
3. The second aspect and the second ground of appeal is that the prosecution failed to verify whether the defence had been provided with the names and addresses of possible witnesses to the incidents which resulted in the two counts in the indictment. The reference particularly there was to the police officers' notebooks. Incident report books had been disclosed, but it transpired that there were also in existence police officers' notebooks of a kind with which the Court is very familiar. Those were sought by the defence, albeit at a somewhat late stage in the course of the trial. The judge asked for those notebooks to be produced to the court the following day in order that the defence might see them so as to satisfy themselves whether or not the names and addresses of other witnesses who had made statements to the police but who were not being called were contained in the notebooks.
4. The solicitors acting for the applicant had written to the Crown Prosecution Service requesting that information as long ago as 28th April 1999. The information was never supplied. Since the application for leave to appeal was made the solicitors for the applicant, sensibly, if we may say so, suggested to the Crown Prosecution Service that if the notebooks were now produced and were examined and were found not to contain the names and addresses of any of the suggested witnesses to the incident then maybe this appeal would be aborted.
5. Very regrettably, there has been no response to that suggestion made by the solicitors for the applicant. In those circumstances this Court finds itself in particular difficulty in determining whether or not this application should be granted or refused. What we propose to order, therefore, is that any computer-aided dispatch messages which relate to the case and to either of the allegations made at the trial shall be brought to court by the officer in charge of the case and be made available for this Court to inspect and determine whether or not to disclose. In addition we specifically order that officer to produce to this Court on the day when the case is relisted, namely a week on Thursday, which will be 22nd June, the notebooks of the two officers concerned in the arrest. We assume that they are still in existence and in store. If that is not the position then an officer must come to court to give an explanation as to what has happened to them.
6. The case will be listed, as we have indicated, on 22nd June. We shall then determine the application for leave to appeal. If we grant the application then it will be the intention of the Court to proceed to hear the appeal in substance on that day. For those purposes, as my Lord has already indicated, we are prepared to grant legal aid to the applicant, counsel only.