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 the prosecutor to re-open his case to put the evidence. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was refused. The court reviewed the cases describing when a prosecutor might be allowed to re-open his case, and this case fell within the rules.
Kennedy LJ: ‘In my judgment any trial court must recognise that it is the duty of the prosecution to call its evidence before closing its case. But it is now beyond argument that there is a general discretion to permit the calling of evidence at a later stage, which extends in a Magistrates’ Court up to the time when the Bench retires.’
Judges:
Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J
Citations:
[2000] EWHC Admin 316
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Pilcher 1974
The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to . .
Cited – Regina v Tate CACD 1977
At the close of a prosecution case for driving with excess alcohol, the appellant stated that he would not give or call evidence. He then submitted that the jury should be directed to consider only the admissible evidence of the analyst called who . .
Cited – Regina v Sheppard HL 1993
Where the prosecutor wishes to rely on evidence set out in a document produced by a computer, there must be affirmative evidence as to the computer’s reliability in accordance with the requirements of Section 69. It can be either oral evidence or a . .
Cited – Morris v Matthews CA 1981
On a prosecution for theft, the prosecution failed to read a statement from the owner of the property, which statement had been served on the defence pursuant to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It was submitted that there was no case to . .
Cited – MacDonald v Skelt QBD 1985
At the close of the prosecution case, it was submitted that the defendant had no case to answer because there was insufficient evidence that the blood specimen taken from him and that analysed by the Scientific Officer were the same. The Justices . .
Cited – James v South Glamorgan County Council 1992
On trial of a charge of supplying a motor vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition, a prosecution witness (the person to whom the vehicle was supplied) had difficulty in locating the Court House. Before he arrived, the prosecution had closed its case, . .
Cited – Regina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina v Francis CACD 1990
The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge . .
Cited – Antonio Leeson v Haringey Justices and Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 26-Jul-1999
The prosecutor on a charge of driving with excess alcohol had failed to adduce evidence as to the calibration of the intoximeter. The magistrates allowed him to re-open his case. The defendant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed: ‘If the . .
Cited – Regina v Pydar Justices Ex Parte Foster QBD 23-May-1995
There was a case to answer on an OPL charge despite the computer readout not being handed to Justices. It was in evidence. Evidence referred to but not challenged by the defendant can be relied upon by Justices in making their decision. The court . .
Cited – Regina v Aylesbury Crown Court ex parte Lait Admn 13-Mar-1998
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tuck v Vehicle Inspectorate Admn 24-Mar-2004
The defendant appealed a conviction for exceeding the gross permitted weight on a goods vehicle. The magistrates having heard the case, the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, the prosecution having failed to bring evidence as to the . .
Cited – Traves, Regina (on the Application Of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 30-Jun-2005
The defendant appealed conviction involving allegations that he was driving. He was sat at the wheel of a vehicle being towed by means of a rigid steel bar. He denied that he was driving, but had both steered and braked.
Held: The magistrates . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Evidence
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140130
