The defendant had faced a charge of possessing an offensive weapon, namely a rice flail. The judge invited the prosecution to reconsider the case before it started, but the case went ahead. After the jury was empanelled, but before the prosecutor opened, the judge discharged the jury, saying that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for having the rice flail, and that the prosecution was bound to fail.
Held: The authorities were clear, and the judge did not have that power. Once a case reached the Crown Court, the defendant was to be arraigned and tried unless: I) on a motion to quash, the indictment was found defective; ii) the defendant successfully pleaded autrefois acquit or convict; iii) a nolle prosequi was entered by the Attorney General ; iv) The offence was not capable of being tried at the Crown Court; or v) the proceedings amounted to an abuse. None of these applied in this case, and: ‘The trial judge simply did not have the power to prevent the prosecution from calling evidence on the basis that he thought a conviction was unlikely.’
Judges:
Kennedy LJ
Citations:
Times 23-Nov-2000
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Middlesex Quarter Sessions, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1952
The court considered a trial on indictment where there was jurisdiction to try the offence charged. After pleas had been taken and counsel for the Crown had opened the prosecution case to the jury, the chairman intervened and directed the jury to . .
Cited – Regina v Chairman, London County Quarter Sessions, ex parte Downes 1953
The Judge had acceded to a defence submission of no case, made in advance of arraignment on the basis of the depositions, and had quashed the indictments.
Held: The Divisional Court granted an order of mandamus requiring the court to try the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Humphrys HL 1977
Humphrys was charged with driving while disqualified. The issue was the correctness of the identification by a police constable. In evidence, Humphrys denied that he was the driver, or indeed that he had driven any car during the year in question. . .
Cited by:
Cited – N Ltd and Another, Regina v CACD 10-Jun-2008
The defence had requested and been give a ruling of no case to answer. The prosecutor now appealed saying that this had been before he had closed the prosecution case, and had been not with his consent.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.77963