Tatton, R. v

A criminal trial judge must not use material from a defendant’s legal-aid application, which is not evidence in the trial, to challenge the defendant’s credibility. Doing so can cause irreparable prejudice and render the trial unfair.

Where regulations prohibit disclosure of such defence-related information to a prosecuting authority, the judge may not use the material on the judge’s own initiative. The resulting conviction must be quashed where the unfairness affected the trial.

The appellant was convicted of theft at the Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent after goods worth substantially more than the sums paid were taken through a supermarket checkout. Her daughter and the cashier admitted planning the theft, but the appellant denied knowledge of the arrangement.

In evidence, the appellant asserted that she was financially secure. The trial judge then questioned her extensively about debts and financial difficulties disclosed in her legal-aid application. She appealed against conviction, contending that this questioning was improper and deprived her of a fair trial.

1. Appeal allowed. The court held that the appellant had not received a fair trial. Her conviction was quashed, and the Crown did not seek a retrial.
2. The judge had used information from the appellant’s legal-aid application, which was not evidence in the trial, to challenge her assertion that she was financially secure and thereby to damage her credibility before the jury. That was the very misuse condemned in Winter [1982] 74 Cr App R 16. The earlier authority was sufficient by itself to establish that the trial was unfair.
3. The court also referred to Stubbs [1982] 74 Cr App R 246, a decision to similar effect where the material had been used by the prosecution.
4. Access to Justice Act 1999, section 20 prohibited disclosure of legal-aid application information save as permitted. Although section 20(2)(d) contemplated disclosure for investigating or prosecuting offences, the applicable disclosure regulations prohibited the Commission from disclosing defence-related information that could be used to prosecute that case. It followed that, since the prosecution could not lawfully use the material, the judge could not use it of the judge’s own motion.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and recorded that the Crown did not seek a retrial.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent — convicted the appellant of one count of theft before His Honour Judge Glenn and a jury.