The Gazette 1992

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST 1992

There must be proper understanding of the nature and scope of the prosecution's duty of disclosure. The Court referred to the Crown Court (Advance Notice of Expert Evidence) Rules 1987 which were not exhaustive: they did not supplant or detract from the prosecution's general duty of disclosure of scientific evidence. That duty extended to anything which might arguably assist the defence. It was wider in scope than the rules. The Court stated that given the undoubted inequality as between prosecution and defence in access to forensic scientists, it was of paramount importance that the common law duty of disclosure should be appreciated by those who prosecuted and defended in criminal trials. Summarising the principles which at present governed the disclosure of evidence by the prosecution before the trial, the Court of Appeal stated -

court greatly regretted that, as a result, a grave miscarriage of justice had occurred.

and because of what they found had called in an officer of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Children. Dillon LJ stated that the basis of the respondent's claim was that for two and a half years in the defendants' house she was a household drudge and virtually a slave. She was beaten if she did anything that displeased the Uzoigwes and lived in constant fear of upsetting them. She had no morfe than the minimum of clothing for comfort, was given no money and the defendants knew she had no financial resources. When the defendants found she had misbehaved she was beaten or made to kneel in the bathroom and not move until she was told to do so. In general, stated Dillon LJ, the respondent had stayed within the house. There was no suggestion that at any stage the appellants had made any attempt to allow her to meet other people. The appellants had made it clear they would not tolerate her acquiring friendships and gave her no opportunity to do so. They had deliberately used their dominant authority over the plaintiff so as effectively to control her. Intimidation was intentional unlawful coercion, according to Dillon LJ. The appellants had intimidated the respondent into working excessive hours, going without personal freedom and without the training in domestic science they had contracted with her father to provide. Being in loco parentis the appellants had unlawfully abused their parental control and exerted their authority to prevent the respondent from having any contact with people outside their house and in particular any social intercourse with her peers. Stuart-Smith LJ agreeing, said that the trial judge had found that on many occasions the respondent was beaten with a stick and slapped. Those assaults were sufficient in themselves to justify the conclusion that the tort was made out. The whole situation in which the respondent found herself was an intimidatory one. The relationship

Domestic "Skivvy": Liability of Employers in Tort for Intimidation The tort of intimidation has been employed in a unique set of facts in the case of Godwin -v- Uzoigwe, (The Times, Law Report, June 18, 1992). In Godwin, the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Dillon, Stuart-Smith and Steyn, LJJ), held that a couple who brought the respondent aged 16 from Nigeria to England and used her as a domestic drudge or skivvy for two and half years, requiring her to work excessively long hours without money and without allowing her proper food, clothing and social intercourse were liable in tort for intimidation. The Court of Appeal held that the couple were in loco parentis to the respondent and their duty of care included a duty not to require her to work excessive hours so that her health did not suffer. Dillon LJ said that Dr Uzoigwe was registrar anaesthetist at Pontefract General Hospital and his wife was the holder of a post-graduate diploma in education and was preparing a thesis on the education of women and girls in Nigeria. They had five children. In December, 1985 or January, 1986 the respondent's father had agreed that she should accompany them to England in return for payment of medical expenses to her mother and she had entered in 1986 as a visitor for three months. The Court stated that Dr Uzoigwe had later applied for an extension of her stay, describing her to the Home Office as his niece. He had described his object in bringing her to England as charitable. The respondent had remained with the family until 1988. In August and September of that year the appellants and their family had gone away on holiday, leaving the respondent at their home in Sheffield. TVvo neighbours had befriended her while they were away

Court of Appeal: "our law does not tolerate a conviction tobe secured by ambush". that, inter alia, the duty to disclose should normally be performed by supplying copies of witness statements to the defence. All relevant experiments and tests must be disclosed. Nothing in the Attorney General's Guidelines (1982) 74 Cr App R 302 derogated from those legal rules. The Court concluded that those responsible for the prosecution failed to carry out their basic duty to seek to ensure a trial which was fair both to the prosecution, representing the Crown, and to the accused. The

222