Mills and Poole, R v.

The House of Lords held that prosecuting counsel has a duty to provide the defence with copies of statements made to the police by persons who witnessed material events even where the prosecutor reasonably considers that the witness is not a witness of truth. The long-standing rule in Rex v. Bryant and Dickson that allowed the prosecution in such circumstances to limit disclosure to the name and address of the witness was rejected as incompatible with modern principles of disclosure. The court nevertheless emphasised that non-disclosure may still be justified in exceptional cases and that the central inquiry is whether any non-disclosure renders the conviction unsafe under the modern appeal test (post-1996 reform).

Applying those principles to the facts, the non-disclosure of the witness's police statements constituted a material irregularity, but the convictions were not unsafe because the defence had access to the substance of the witness's account by other means and the Court of Appeal, having heard the witness, was satisfied that the jury would not have been left in doubt as to guilt.

This appeal concerned two defendants convicted of murder following a trial in the Crown Court. The principal legal issue was whether the Crown was obliged to disclose to the defence the police statements of a third person who had witnessed relevant violence where prosecuting counsel reasonably considered that that witness would not give truthful evidence and might seek to contrive an explanation if called by the defence.

Background and procedure:

• At first instance the appellants were convicted of the murder of Hensley Hendricks Wiltshire (trial and conviction in January 1990).
• The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) refused their appeals in April 1996 but certified a point of law of general public importance; leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted in March 1997.

Relief sought: The appellants sought to quash their convictions on grounds including that the prosecution failed to disclose two police statements of a witness (Ian Christopher Juke), thereby causing a material irregularity and rendering the convictions unsafe.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Crown is under a duty to furnish to the defence copies of material witness statements where prosecuting counsel reasonably considers the witness to be untruthful, or whether disclosure is limited to supplying the witness's name and address (the rule in Rex v. Bryant and Dickson).
• If non-disclosure amounted to a material irregularity, whether that irregularity rendered the convictions unsafe under the modern test for appeal.

Reasoning and conclusion: The House of Lords held that the rule in Bryant and Dickson should no longer be followed. Recent authorities and the modern approach to disclosure require that relevant unused material which may assist the defence should ordinarily be disclosed, subject to narrow exceptions such as properly established public interest immunity. The judgment relied on the need to ensure fairness and the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence; persuasive foreign authority and subsequent English cases supporting broader disclosure were considered.

Despite concluding that non-disclosure of the witness statements constituted a material irregularity, the court dismissed the appeals because (i) the defence was aware of the general content of the statements by virtue of the witness's detailed interview with the defence solicitor and because parts of the second statement had been put to one appellant in police questioning, and (ii) the Court of Appeal, having heard the witness in person on the appeal, was satisfied that calling the witness at trial would not have altered the jury's verdict. Accordingly the convictions were held not to be unsafe.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that prosecuting counsel must, in general, disclose to the defence copies of relevant witness statements even when the witness is regarded as untruthful; the rule in Rex v. Bryant and Dickson was rejected. However, on the facts the non-disclosure did not render the convictions unsafe because the defence had been made aware of the substance of the statements by other means and the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the witness’s oral evidence would not have altered the jury's view.

Convictions at trial in the Crown Court at Bristol (convicted 26 January 1990). Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed appeals on 16 April 1996 and certified a point of law of general public importance; leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted (5 March 1997). The House of Lords heard the appeals and dismissed them on 24 July 1997 ([1997] UKHL 35).