R v Randhawa, Court of Appeal
The defendant and S were directors of a company that was alleged to have been a buffer business for a mobile telephone carousel fraud.
During the trial of the defendant, the judge decided material used in separate restraint proceedings against S should not be made available.
The defendant argued the material should have been disclosed because it might have shown that S had been conducting a carousel fraud after the defendant had ceased to be a director.
The Court of Appeal said there was no reason to examine the material. Whether or not S had continued trading after the defendant had left had not formed part of the defendant’s defence.
