The Supreme Court considered the revised statutory schemes for the disclosure of convictions in England and Wales and Northern Ireland under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and the Police Act 1997. The schemes were in accordance with the law for the purposes of ECHR art.8 and, with the exception of provisions in relation to the multiple conviction rule and warnings and reprimands issued to young offenders, it was not possible to say that the categories in the schemes were disproportionate.
A defendant in civil proceedings was ordered to disclose documents given to it by the Serious Fraud Office which the SFO had obtained during a criminal investigation pursuant to its powers under the Criminal Justice Act 1987 s.2.
The court refused to grant a Norwich Pharmacal order to an investment firm which was contemplating the private prosecution of two individuals it suspected of using insider information to buy shares in a company shortly before a public announcement increased its share value. The matter was already the subject of civil proceedings where disclosure could be sought, and the firm’s suspicions had been referred to the CPS which was well placed to decide whether to investigate. A Norwich Pharmacal order was not necessary for the firm to obtain justice.
A claimant failed to show that disclosure on enhanced criminal record certificates of an allegation of sexual assault of which he had been acquitted was disproportionate and inaccurate.
The Criminal Justice Act 1987 s.2(3), under which the Serious Fraud Office could require any person to produce relevant documents for an SFO investigation, had extraterritorial application to foreign companies in respect of documents held abroad where there was a sufficient connection between the company and the UK.