Green v Chief Constable of South Wales Police

A defendant has no absolute entitlement under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, section 3, to disclosure of an entire recording. Disclosure depends on whether the material is relevant to an issue in the case. A court may therefore refuse disclosure of the whole recording where the applicant does not identify its relevance. Such a refusal does not, without more, deny a fair hearing under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the Crown Court’s dismissal of his appeal from conviction in the magistrates’ court for exceeding the speed limit. He had sought disclosure of the complete video recording made during a speed-enforcement session, so that it could be analysed. The disclosure application was refused because its relevance to any issue had not been identified. The claimant did not attend the Divisional Court to prosecute the appeal. The court considered whether section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 gave an absolute right to the recording and whether refusal of the complete recording breached article 6.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The questions posed by the case stated were answered: the claimant had no absolute right under section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 to disclosure of the whole video recording; the lower court was correct in law to refuse disclosure of the whole recording; and refusal did not deprive the claimant of a fair hearing contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

2. Section 3 did not require disclosure of material merely because it formed part of the complete recording. The claimant had not explained what issue the whole recording was relevant to. In those circumstances, the court was entitled to reject the application for the entire recording.

3. The fairness complaint under article 6 failed because access to the complete recording was not shown to be necessary for a fair determination of the appeal.

4. Although the defendant sought costs of £1,633, the court considered that figure disproportionate in the circumstances and awarded £1,000.

• Divisional Court of the High Court: The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed and the questions were answered in the defendant’s favour.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: The claimant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed.
• Pontypridd Magistrates’ Court: The claimant was convicted of exceeding the speed limit.