During the committal proceedings, the defendant had behaved in a disruptive fashion, and the clerk failed to remind him fully of his rights to call evidence.
Held: The failure was a procedural irregularity which affected what happened thereafter, even though it caused no discernible prejudice. The case was remitted to the crown court to decide whether the failure was so fundamental as to have caused unfairness.
References: [1993] CLR 78
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Brizzalari v Regina CACD 19-Feb-2004
In closing, prosecuting counsel had suggested that during the trial two matters had been mentioned by the defence which had not been mentioned earlier, and that the jury should feel free to draw proper inferences under the 1984 Act from that . .
(Times 03-Mar-04, [2004] EWCA Crim 310, )
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 27 November 2020; Ref: scu.194272 br>