The Judge had acceded to a defence submission of no case, made in advance of arraignment on the basis of the depositions, and had quashed the indictments.
Held: The Divisional Court granted an order of mandamus requiring the court to try the indictment, on the ground that there was no power to do what the Judge had done: ‘If this course were permissible, it would enable a court, the members of which disapproved of or disliked a statute, the breach of which formed the subject matter of the indictment, simply to quash it and decline to try it.’
Lord Goddard remarked that no member of the court had ever heard of the quashing of an indictment in such circumstances, nor could any authority be found to support it. That was notwithstanding the presence in the case of an array of extremely experienced criminal advocates.
Judges:
Lord Goddard CJ
Citations:
[1954] 1 QB 1, (1953) 37 Cr App R 148
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2000) CACD 23-Nov-2000
The defendant had faced a charge of possessing an offensive weapon, namely a rice flail. The judge invited the prosecution to reconsider the case before it started, but the case went ahead. After the jury was empanelled, but before the prosecutor . .
Cited – N Ltd and Another, Regina v CACD 10-Jun-2008
The defence had requested and been give a ruling of no case to answer. The prosecutor now appealed saying that this had been before he had closed the prosecution case, and had been not with his consent.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal succeeded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.238127
