An interesting question is how far a prosecutor’s obligations of fairness extend beyond conviction itself. The leading case of Nunn suggests a duty to cooperate reasonably with reasonable defence requests for post-conviction disclosure but does not deal explicitly with the obligations on prosecutors when they, rather than the defence, discover problems which might need to be disclosed or investigated.
But isn't this what para 35 of the Supreme Court judgment covers? It says
"There can be no doubt that if the police or prosecution come into possession, after the appellate process is exhausted, of something new which might afford arguable grounds for contending that the conviction was unsafe, it is their duty to disclose it to the convicted defendant. "
(presumably the word "new" comes from the assumption that anything not new will already have been disclosed, as in the second and third sentences of para 25). See also para 30.
Interestingly, given that Altman recognises that the mediation might give rise to a legitimate need to disclose evidence in relation to criminal convictions, in September 2013, Altman had advised the PO against allowing the convicted to participate in the mediation process, “I thought there lurked real dangers in it,” he says.
Is he really saying not to look at convictions in case they may come across something that should be disclosed? If so, this seems, to me, quite awful
Richard, you say
An interesting question is how far a prosecutor’s obligations of fairness extend beyond conviction itself. The leading case of Nunn suggests a duty to cooperate reasonably with reasonable defence requests for post-conviction disclosure but does not deal explicitly with the obligations on prosecutors when they, rather than the defence, discover problems which might need to be disclosed or investigated.
But isn't this what para 35 of the Supreme Court judgment covers? It says
"There can be no doubt that if the police or prosecution come into possession, after the appellate process is exhausted, of something new which might afford arguable grounds for contending that the conviction was unsafe, it is their duty to disclose it to the convicted defendant. "
(presumably the word "new" comes from the assumption that anything not new will already have been disclosed, as in the second and third sentences of para 25). See also para 30.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/37.html
You say
Interestingly, given that Altman recognises that the mediation might give rise to a legitimate need to disclose evidence in relation to criminal convictions, in September 2013, Altman had advised the PO against allowing the convicted to participate in the mediation process, “I thought there lurked real dangers in it,” he says.
Is he really saying not to look at convictions in case they may come across something that should be disclosed? If so, this seems, to me, quite awful