Law Report: No disclosure to defendant: Re Headington Investments Ltd - Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Steyn and Lord Justice Rose), 7 April 1993
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Transcripts of interviews under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 by liquidators with a person subsequently charged with criminal offences need not be disclosed to the person charged when they are disclosed to the Serious Fraud Office.
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an application by Kevin Maxwell for leave to appeal against Mr Justice Vinelott's order that transcripts of examinations of Mr Maxwell under section 236 be disclosed to the SFO. Mr Maxwell was a director of companies in liquidation or receivership. On 18 June 1992 he was charged with theft and fraudulent conspiracy. No transfer to the Crown Court had been given. Mr Justice Vinelott refused simulataneous disclosure to Mr Maxwell.
Robert Alun Jones QC and Campaspe Lloyd-Jacob (Peters & Peters) for Maxwell; Mary Arden QC and Kate Thirlwall (SFO) for the SFO.
LORD JUSTICE DILLON said there was no basis on which disclosure to the SFO could or should be deferred until after notice of transfer to the Crown Court. It was likely that the transcripts would be obtained by Mr Maxwell in due course of the criminal proceedings. It was not for the Court of Appeal or the Chancery Division to interfere with the procedure of the criminal court.
Ying Hui Tan, Barrister
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments