One of the difficulties associated with granting of bail in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, is the trauma caused to the appellant being returned to prison if his appeal fails. Roskill LJ said: ‘This Court desires to say as plainly as possible that where (exceptionally) intending appellants or applicants are released on bail and delay follows in the hearing of the appeal, that delay cannot and must not be relied upon, whenever the appeal or application fails, as a reason for their not being sent back to prison to serve their sentence. That is usually made plain when bail is granted, and it must be clearly understood that that is so.’
The judge has a duty to restrain cross-examination which is improper.
Judges:
Roskill LJ
Citations:
(1974) 60 Cr App R 200
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Wakely 7-Jun-1990
(High Court of Australia) The defendants appealed against their convictions, saying that their cross examinations had been improperly restricted by the judge at trial.
Held: The court considered the limit of permissible cross-examination. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.470725