78. It is be noted that the Code of Practice was issued under Part II of the Act, namely in respect of ‘Criminal Investigations’. Paragraph 2.1 defines “material” as including “information and objects, which is obtained or inspected in the course of a criminal investigation and which may be relevant to the investigation.” Paragraph 4.4 provides “Where information which may be relevant is obtained, it must be recorded at the time it is obtained or as soon as practicable after that time.” Obviously, those provisions resonate with the common law requirement that investigators ascertain, obtain and retain information as well as objects. It was a requirement that a record was made which was adequate to disclose the circumstances leading to the meetings between police officers and the two accomplices and the nub of what was said between them. That requirement did not dictate the making of witness statements or verbatim transcripts of what had been said. It may be that in his review of the disclosure guidelines, given the fact that Code preserves and amplifies the common law rules, the DPP will find the Code a useful point of reference.
Conclusion
79. For the reasons which we have set out, we were satisfied that Ms Lai’s concession that this Court ought to allow the appeal on Ground 1 was well made. Accordingly, treating the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal, we allowed the applicant’s appeal against conviction and quashed his conviction.
