Spartley, R. v

The prosecution’s initial disclosure duty is fulfilled where it discloses all material in its possession relating to the relevant interview. That duty does not, without more, require the prosecution to conduct further investigations into the circumstances of an overseas police interview.

An admitted prior drugs-smuggling account was admissible under section 105 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, at least to correct a false impression created by the defendant’s account. A fair opportunity to inspect the material, question the available officer, or give responsive evidence does not reverse the burden of proof.

The appellant was acquitted at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to import ecstasy but convicted of possessing herbal cannabis and cannabis resin with intent to supply. The prosecution relied on evidence found at premises occupied by his brother, communications and money transfers, and a Dutch police interview in which the appellant had admitted transporting cannabis from Holland to Spain.

The Crown gave late notice of its intention to adduce the Dutch interview as bad-character evidence. The trial judge admitted it and later rejected a submission of no case to answer. The appellant appealed against conviction, alleging inadequate disclosure, unfair admission of the Dutch interview, and insufficient evidence on the possession counts.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Crown had fulfilled its initial disclosure duty under section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. It had disclosed all material it possessed concerning the July 2000 Dutch interview. The Dutch file was available for inspection, and the Dutch police officer who produced it was available to attend but was de-warned by the defence. No application for further unused material was made.
2. The prosecution was not obliged to make further enquiries into the circumstances of the Dutch interview. The appellant had sufficient opportunity to challenge the evidence, inspect the file, question the officer, address any translation issue, or give evidence about the interview’s circumstances. Those opportunities did not impose an illegitimate burden on him.
3. The interview was properly admitted as bad-character evidence. The appellant accepted that he had made the admissions, had been warned that he need not answer, and had signed the interview. His assertion in the present case that he had never been in trouble with the police could be corrected by the evidence under section 105 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He also accepted at trial that the account he gave to the Dutch police was true.
4. Since the interview was properly admitted, it did not undermine the rejection of the half-time submission. There was in any event ample evidence on the possession-with-intent-to-supply counts. The fact that the evidence also bore on importation or conspiracy did not prevent the jury from considering those possession offences. The judge’s directions on the relationship between count 1 and counts 2 and 3 were proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2007] EWCA Crim 1789, dismissed the appellant’s conviction appeal.
• Woolwich Crown Court — on 8 September 2006, acquitted the appellant of conspiracy to import ecstasy and convicted him of two counts of possession of cannabis with intent to supply.