The defendants had been charged in a 17 count indictment. Further indictments were properly added, and then yet further indictments. The judge had directed these last to be signed but they had not been. The defendants said that they were therefore defective.
Held: The appeals failed. The Court could not distinguish Morais because it had involved a voluntary bill, but found two further and crucial distinctions. However the new counts had been included in the properly signed earlier indictments and had been checked by the proper officer. Also the judge had exercised the discretion granted to him by the proviso to section 2(1) of the 1933 Act to direct the proper officer in open court to sign indictments 4 and 5 and she had been obliged to do so, lacking (as a result of the direction) any independent jurisdiction of her own. The court declined to accept that the lawful direction of the trial judge could be frustrated and rendered valueless because the proper officer, for whatever reason, failed to follow his direction.
Citations:
Times 09-Jun-1997, Gazette 18-Jun-1997, [1997] Crim LR 755, (1997) 161 JP 815, (1997) 161 JPN 770, [1997] EWCA Crim 1170, [1997] 2 Cr App R 497
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Clarke, Regina v; Regina v McDaid HL 6-Feb-2008
An indictment had not been signed despite a clear statutory provision that it should be. The defects were claimed to have been cured by amendment before sentence.
Held: The convictions failed. Sections 1(1) and 2(1) of the 1933 Act which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.150625
