The defendant sought judicial review of the crown court’s decision to allow the prosecutor to re-open his case even after defence counsel had begun his summing up.
Held: The court ‘did step outside the reasonable bounds of its discretion in giving leave to the prosecution to call further evidence, and then in adjourning the case for re-hearing because of non-availability of Mrs Wright and the time of day.’ and ‘I cannot, in the circumstances of this case, find an obligation in defence counsel to raise the point, if he was going to raise it at all, while the prosecution witness was giving evidence.’ and ‘The further relevant aspect of this case is the need, if the prosecution are correct, for a complete re-hearing. That was going to involve substantial delay and there is an interest in finality in this litigation. I regard that as a relevant factor which distinguishes this case from one where the evidence to be given could be given on the same day and as part of the same trial, though I am not saying that that factor has been the decisive one in this case.’
Judges:
Pill LJ
Citations:
[1998] EWHC Admin 319
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Christopher James Jolly v Director of Public Prosections Admn 31-Mar-2000
At trial in the magistrates court, the prosecution had failed to bring evidence that the computer used to analyse the defendant’s breath alcohol was in proper working condition. The defendant submitted no case to answer, and the magistrates allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138440