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 ruled in favour of the defendant, but the prosecutor was then allowed to re-open his case and called evidence that the specimen taken and the specimen analysed were the same.
Held: The court was not functus officio. ‘For there to be a state of functus officio, the Justices would have to indicate clearly that they had reached a conclusion on the issues which were being argued and, further, that in consequence of their conclusion they were giving a decision on the outcome of the case. Merely for them to have expressed the first half of that pair of conclusions would not, in my judgment, be enough to indicate that they had dismissed the case and were therefore functus officio.’
Judges:
Taylor J May LJ
Citations:
[1985] RTR 321
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
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 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.
Road Traffic, Criminal Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.195675