Crown Prosecution Service v City of London Magistrates’ Court and Gill: Admn 20 Dec 2005

The prosecutor sought to bring in documentary evidence in support of its application to commit the defendant for trial on fraud charges. During the course of proceedings the rules changed on admission of such evidence. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of the charges after they had been refused consent to admit the evidnce after the magistrate found they had not served the appropriate notice under the original procedure.
Held: The failure was not fatal to the case. The hearsay provisions had to be applied, but the magistrate should have relied upon s5D.

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-2006, [2005] EWHC 3205 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 5(d) 6(1), Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedRegina v Osieh CACD 5-Mar-1996
The alteration of an indictment by the adding of a new charge is not completely to be barred, but the court may think it proper to allow an adjournment. . .
CitedRegina v H CACD 22-Aug-2005
. .
CitedBradley, Regina v CACD 14-Jan-2005
The defendant complained that his criminal record had been placed before the jury under the Act, even though the proceedings had been begun before the commencement date.
Held: The provisions of the Act were procedural in nature and therefore . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Magistrates, Criminal Practice

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.238417