Summary
After five prosecution witnesses were given protected status, the trial court directed supply of their statements with names, addresses and other identifying material redacted. The Court held that this later disclosure order implemented the accused’s fair-trial rights and did not review the earlier protection order. The prosecution’s appeal was also barred because the disclosure order was interlocutory. The High Court judgment was set aside and the trial court’s carefully qualified disclosure direction restored.
Issues
- Whether supplying redacted statements impermissibly reviewed an earlier witness-protection order.
- Whether the prosecution could appeal the interlocutory disclosure order.
- Whether the redaction safeguards reconciled protection with fair disclosure.
Provisions considered
- Sections 173(6) and 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Witness-protection exclusions and subsequent qualified disclosure operated at different stages; the later order was not review. (¶¶ 10-11, 16-17, 24-27)
- Section 44, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Protection of identity and address was maintained through redaction, including other passages revealing occupation or identity. (¶¶ 13-14, 24, 27)
- Section 21(1), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The prosecution could not appeal the interlocutory disclosure order. (¶¶ 21, 26)
Held
- The initial order safeguarded witnesses at the threshold without notice to the accused. The later application sought statements for the defence with identifying portions removed. These were exercises under different provisions at different stages, rather than an unavailable power of review. (¶ 24-25)
- The trial court allowed redaction not only of names and addresses but also of passages disclosing occupation or identity, with discretion entrusted to the Special Public Prosecutor. The prosecution did not explain how these safeguards would nevertheless expose the witnesses. (¶¶ 14, 27)
- The qualified disclosure direction fairly protected witnesses while preserving the defence’s access to material needed for a fair trial. The protected status itself was not disturbed. (¶¶ 24, 27)
- The disclosure order was interlocutory and therefore could not be challenged by the prosecution in appeal under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act. (¶ 26)
- The High Court judgment was set aside and the trial court’s order of 11 September 2021 restored. The appeal was allowed with the parties bearing their own costs. (¶ 28-29)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside; trial court’s direction to supply statements after protective redaction restored. Parties to bear their own costs.