Criminal

Police refusing to disclose interview record to defendant's solicitor - solicitor advising defendant to refuse to consent to caution - absent knowledge of defendant's admissions - subsequent criminal proceedings to be stayed as abuse of processDirector of Public Prosecutions v Ara: DC (Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Silber): 21 June 2001The defendant was interviewed at a police station, in the absence of his solicitor, in relation to an alleged assault.

He made an admission which in view of the interviewing police officer rendered him suitable for caution.

The defendant was released on bail and his solicitor's repeated requests for copies of the interview and custody record were refused.

Upon the defendant's return to the police station two months later, so that a decision could be made as to whether to caution or charge him, the solicitor told the police sergeant that without having seen the interview record and absent evidence of guilt he had to advise the defendant to contest the allegation and not consent to caution.

Proceedings brought against the defendant were stayed by the justices as an abuse of the process of the court.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed.

Richard Germain (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, London) for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Donald Broatch (instructed by Azzopard & Co) for the defendant.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that where police were prepared to offer a caution to a suspect in relation to an offence, that suspect was entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal adviser to assess the prosecution case against the suspect and give informed advice as to whether to consent to a caution; that the justices were entitled to order the stay, the police having refused to disclose terms of the interview without which informed advice and consent to caution could not be given; but that did not mean that there was a general obligation on police to disclose material prior to charge on any wide ranging basis.