- 3 -the work of the Prosecutor-General's Department. It was forthis reason that after hearing argument this Court made and
in a declaratory order. We did not want to delay theconsequences flowing from our judgment.
This is the order
made:"ORDER:A formal order upholding or dismissing the appeal would inthe circumstances of this case be inappropriate and willnot serve or fulfil the object of this litigation which isto provide helpful guidance in future prosecutions inwhich the accused seeks to obtain the contents of policedockets relevant to the prosecution on
particularmatter. The most useful course would be to make an orderin the form of a declarator.It is accordingly declared that:1. In prosecutions before the High Court, an accusedperson (or his legal representative) shall ordinarilybe entitled to the information contained in thepolice docket relating to the case prepared by theprosecution against him, including copies of thestatements of witnesses, whom the police haveinterviewed in the matter, whether or not theprosecution intends to call any such witness at the
The State shall be entitled to withhold from theaccused (or his legal representative), anyinformation contained in any such docket, if itsatisfies the Court on a balance of probabilities,that it has reasonable grounds for believing that thedisclosure of any such information might reasonablyimpede the ends of justice or otherwise be againstthe public interest. (Examples of such claims arewhere the information sought to be withheld woulddisclose the identity of an informer which it isnecessary to protect, or where it would disclosepolice techniques of investigation which it issimilarly necessary to protect, or where suchdisclosure might imperil the safety of a witness orwould otherwise not be in the public or stateinterest.)3. The duty of the State to afford to an accused person(or his legal representative) the right referred toin paragraph 1 shall ordinarily be discharged uponservice of the indictment and before the accused is