House Of Lords LAW REPORT MAY 3 Before LoRD REID, LORD MoRRIs OF BoRTH-Y-GESr, LORD HoDsoN, LoRD PEARCE and LORD UPJOHN [Judgment delivered on May 2] The House of Lords, having in- spected five documents in respect of which the Crown had claimed privi- lege from production in a proposed action for malicious prosecution by a former probationary police con- stable, Mr. Michael David Conway, against Mr. Thomas Rimmer, bis former superintendent in Cheshire Constabulary, decided that there was nothing in them which would be in any way prejudicial to the proper administration of the force or to the general public interest and that they must therefore be made avail- able in the litigation. Their Lordships ordered that the costs of Mr. Conway and of Mr. Rimmer be paid by the Attorney General, the second respondent. On February 28 in Conway v. Rimmer (The Times, February 29; ([1968] 2 W.L.R. 998) their Lordships cverruled dicta of the House in Duncan v. Cammell Laird & Co. Ltd. (11942] A.C. 624) on the extent of Crown privilege, and held that where there was a clash between the public interest relied on by the Crown in seeking to withhold documents of a particular class and the public interest that the administration of justice should not be frustrated by withholding such documents, the court might call for and itself examine the documents and, in a proper case, order their production. The documents in question are four reports made by the superintendent about the constable durin2 his pro- bationary period, and a report by the superintendent to his chief constable in connexion with a criminal charge on which the constable was acquitted and on which his civil action was based. HOUSE OF LORDS POLICE MUST PRODUCE FIVE REPORTS CONWAY v. RIMMER AND ANOTHER