Regina v Francis: CACD 1990

The prosecution had omitted to bring evidence that the person standing at No.20 on an identification parade was the appellant. The defence complained that the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case.
Held: ‘The discretion of the judge to admit evidence after the close of the prosecution case is not confined to the two well established exceptions. There is a wider discretion. We refrain from defining precisely the limit of that discretion since we cannot foresee all the circumstances in which it might fall to be exercised. It is of the essence of any discretion that it should be kept flexible. But lest there be any misunderstanding and lest it be thought we are opening the door too wide, we would echo what was said by Edmund-Davies LJ in the Doran case at p. 437 that the discretion is one which should only be exercised outside the two established exceptions on the rarest of occasions.’ and ‘The earlier the application to admit the further evidence is made after the close of the prosecution case, the more likely it is that the discretion will be exercised in favour of the prosecution.’


Lloyd LJ


[1990] 91 Cr App R 271


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
On a charge of burglary, the prosecution had not brought evidence that the appellant was one of those who carried cartons out of Liberty’s department store. The court allowed the prosecutor to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: . .
CitedYearly v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 21-Mar-1997
Having closed their case, the prosecution applied for and were granted opportunity to adduce evidence in the form of certificates under section 69.
Held: The court had a discretion to allow further evidence. The magistrates had correctly . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Horseferry Road Justices ex parte Hillier Admn 9-Oct-1998
Challenge to conviction based upon evidence as to contents of evidence bags where there was a discontinuity in its custody. Counsel complained that he had been badgered by the stipendiary magistrate into revealing his defence in advance.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.193589