Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE & Ors v Associated Newspapers Limited

Third-party disclosure is exceptional. Under CPR 31.17, the applicant must show both that the documents are likely to support its case or adversely affect another party’s case, and that disclosure is necessary for the fair disposal of the claim or to save costs. Documents directed only to a collateral challenge to a witness’s credibility will not ordinarily satisfy the relevance requirement. The court retains a discretion to refuse relief even where the threshold conditions are met, particularly where the application is late and disclosure would disrupt the trial disproportionately to its limited utility.

The claimants applied under CPR 31.17 for third-party disclosure from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis of documents generated during Operation Fishpool. They said the documents recorded what Stephen Wright told the police in 2007 about the source of information used in a Daily Mail article.

The application arose in Baroness Lawrence’s claim concerning whether information published in the article had been obtained through corrupt payments to a police officer. Associated Newspapers opposed disclosure, although the MPS did not. The central questions were whether the documents were likely to support the claimants’ case or adversely affect the defendant’s case, whether disclosure was necessary, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant relief at a late stage.

1. The application for third-party disclosure against the MPS was refused.
2. Under CPR 31.17(3)(a), the documents sought had to be likely to support the claimants’ case or adversely affect the defendant’s case. The documents were directed only to whether Mr Wright had previously given an account inconsistent with his trial evidence about the nature of his source. That issue went solely to credit. It did not, without more, advance the pleaded case that the information had been obtained by corrupt payments, nor materially undermine the defendant’s case on that issue.
3. The rule was not a mechanism for obtaining third-party disclosure merely to conduct a collateral attack on credibility. The court treated the requirement of necessity as reflecting the exceptional nature of disclosure against non-parties, referring to Omers Administration Corp v Tesco PLC [2019] EWHC 109 (Ch) at [79].
4. In any event, the requirement under CPR 31.17(3)(b) was not met. The alleged inconsistency had already been explored through cross-examination and existing evidence. The absence of the documents did not prevent the claimants from presenting their case or create forensic unfairness.
5. The court also refused relief in the exercise of its discretion. The application was made very late, with a risk of trial disruption and possible recall of Mr Wright. That risk was disproportionate to the peripheral utility of the requested disclosure. The application also risked reviving an impermissible focus on whether Mr Wright had misled the Leveson Inquiry.