ASSN
A
B
C
D.
E
F
G
H
interpretation so that if the proceedings were brought for a
collateral purpose, or with an improper motive and not for the
purpose of achieving the proper administration of justice, they
would not be regarded as complying with this statutory
requirement.
Likewise the accusations would not be made in
good faith and in the interests of justice if the prosecution
deliberately manipulates or misuses the process of the court to
deprive the defendant of a protection to which he is entitled by
law.
The
It is important to bear in mind the purpose for which the
applicant is here seeking to establish a duty to disclose.
object is to cause the court to exercise its supervisory
jurisdiction on an application for judicial review to quash
committal proceedings, albeit that it is not suggested that the
Chief Stipendiary Magistrate was in any way at fault.
Where a tribunal is not at fault (even if it comes to a
final as opposed to a prima facie decision) there are limits as
to the circumstances in which the court will intervene on the
grounds of a breach of natural justice. This was made clear by
the House of Lords in R. v. The Home Secretary, ex parte
Al-Mehdawi [1990] 1 AC 876. In the case of a trial it is
necessary to establish circumstances which are analogous to
fraud, collusion and perjury. This can exist, particularly
where there is a duty to disclose, if there is "suppressio veri
which had the same effect as a suggestio falsi in distorting and
vitiating the process leading to conviction"
O
(per Lord Bridge
at page 896). The same approach is reflected in the even more
recent decision of R. v. Bolton Justices, ex parte Scally
[1991] 2 WLR 239 on which Mr. Thomas relied.
In addition there is the fact that must not be lost sight
20