Is the 'Golden Rule' of full prosecution disclosure a modern 'Mission Impossible'?

It is almost universally acknowledged that the prosecutor's modem rolewith respect to the disclosure of relevant material in its possession mustbe that of the candid 'minister of justice' in line with the 'golden rule'of disclosure, which requires full disclosure of any relevant material.Accordingly, the real controversy in relation to disclosure concerns theprecise boundaries and content of this duty. This article charts the issuesthat have arisen since the landmark case of R v Ward [1993] 1 WLR 619raised serious issues of prosecutorial obligations for disclosure inEngland. In particular this article asks whether it is realistic to expectthe police and/or the prosecuting lawyer to deal fairly and objectivelywith issues of disclosure. It is clear that the prosecution's disclosureobligations must be framed within a formal disclosure regime. Despitethe major problems of principle and practice that have arisen inEngland, it is, nevertheless, still possible to offer some suggestionsabout the framework of a formal system of disclosure that is both fairand workable. Considering the effective incorporation of the Englishsystem of disclosure into Australia law with R v Mallard (2005) 224CLR 125, such a framework is appropriate for both England and Australia. Disclosure may be both difficult and expensive to achieve'but the costs of non-disclosure are now prohibitive'.