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 answer, but the court then allowed the statement to be read.
Held: Lloyd J said: ‘The discretion is not limited to cases where what has been omitted is merely formal or technical. It includes matters of substance. The essence of a discretion is that it can be exercised in more than one way. It must always, of course, be exercised judicially. But there is no case for arguing that the discretion was not exercised judicially here. In addition, this particular discretion must be exercised carefully, having regard to the need to be fair to the defendant and to reach finality.’

Judges:

Lloyd J, Lord Lane CJ

Citations:

[1981] JP 233

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChristopher 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 . .
CitedTuck 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Magistrates

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.195674