Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2008] All ER (D) 245 (Jun)
Neutral Citation: [2008] EWHC 1362 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court

Dyson LJ, Pitchford and Ouseley JJ

Representation James Eadie QC and Alex Bailin (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the claimant.
  Andrew Edis QC and Anne Whyte (instructed by the Solicitor for the Greater Manchester Police) for the second defendant, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police.
  Andrew Nicol QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Attorney-General as an interested party.
Judgment Dates: 19 June 2008


Criminal evidence - Special procedure material - Application for production of special procedure material - Access conditions - Hearing partly in open and partly in closed hearing - Judge making order - Claimant seeking judicial review - Whether possible at hearing of judicial review to take into account matters occurring after making of order - Whether judge erring in holding himself satisfied that access conditions fulfilled - Whether judge failing to exercise discretion in manner compatible with European Convention on Human Rights - Whether privilege against self-incrimination precluding making of production order - Whether order too wide - Whether requirement for special advocate to be appointed -  1, Pt 1, arts 6, 10 -  5, para 6.

The Case

In determining that the circuit judge had made too wide an order on an application by the Chief Constable of the Manchester Police under Sch5 to the the court gave guidance as to the role of the judge when considering the access conditions in para6(2) and (3) of Sch5; the requirement to consider the claimant's rights under art10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the right against self incrimination in art6 of the Convention; and as to the circumstances when a special advocate should be employed where there was a closed hearing.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.