R v R and Ors [2015] EWCA Crim 1941 – S 3 CPIA – CrimPR - articles 5(3) and 6(1) ECHR.
- disclosure where very large quantity of (electronic) information – delay - abuse of process.
1) s 3 CPIA does not require P to disclose material which is neutral or adverse to D.
- P must adopt a considered, appropriately resourced, approach to initial disclosure.
- P must explain in a Disclosure Manaagement Document what it is, and will not be, doing.
- s 3 is prescriptive of the result, not the method.
- where P has vast volumes of electronic material, P is entitled to use appropriate sampling and search terms.
2) P has no duty under s 3 to improve the material seized.
3) court may stay prosecution for abuse of process where (i) impossible to give D a fair trial or (ii) where not fair to try D.
- P’s failings not relevant to category (i).
- unjustified delay not by itself sufficient reason for a stay.
- where D convicted and delay a breach of article 5(3) or 6(1) ECHR it may be cured by a reduced sentence.
- discretion to stay not a disciplinary jurisdiction to express the court’s disapproval.
- to allow abuse of process applications solely for delay which did not prejudice a fair trial would incentivise D to procrastinate.
undefined: unpaid