(St. Vincent and The Grenadines) It was wrong for an appellate court to order a retrial in order allow the prosecution to bring evidence to make good its case which evidence should have been brought at the first trial. The correct approach was to quash the conviction. It was wrong in principle to allow the prosecution to have a second bite at the cherry when it could have got its evidence together the first time around. The first instance judge could have put the issue squarely before the jury, but did not do so. That caused a mistrial.
Citations:
Times 30-Jan-2001, Appeal No 14 of 2000, [2000] UKPC 52
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Michael Pringle v The Queen PC 27-Jan-2003
PC (Jamaica) The court considered the way in which statistical conclusions drawn from DNA evidence had been presented to the jury. The judge had fallen into the ‘Prosecutor’s Fallacy.’ Also the court had relied . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Commonwealth
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159437