The defendant faced committal proceedings for an alleged sexual assault on a young girl. He told the prosecutor of his wish to cross-examine her. The prosecution refused to subject her to the experience of giving evidence at the preliminary hearing as well as at the trial if, as was anticipated, the defendant was to be committed, and called other supporting evidence instead. The defendant appealed against his committal.
Held: The appeal failed. Widgery LCJ said: ‘The question which is posed for us, and the only question on which leave to move was given, is simply this: When committal proceedings are being undertaken in a case such as this, is it open to the prosecution, if they wish, to support the application for committal by calling other supporting evidence and not calling the child at all? That was a course very much in the mind of counsel for the prosecution in this case, because there was other supporting evidence, and he was of the opinion that it would be possible to show a prima facie case and have the applicant committed without the necessity for calling the girl, the complainant, herself. For the purposes of this judgment I would assume that he decided so to do contrary to the request of the defence, who wanted the girl called.
Thus stated, this as a point is a very short one: What is the function of the committal proceedings for this purpose? It is, as the prosecution might contend, simply a safeguard for the citizen to ensure that he cannot be made to stand his trial without a prima facie case being shown; or defence may try out their cross-examination on the prosecution witnesses with a view to using the results to advantage in the Crown Court at a later stage? . . For my part I think it is clear that the function of committal proceedings is to ensure that no one shall stand his trial unless a prima facie case has been made out’.
Judges:
Widgery LCJ
Citations:
[1973] QB 433
Cited by:
Cited – Neill v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 2-Dec-1996
Appeal against wasted costs order made against solicitor. He had information suggesting that an essential prosecution witness might not appear, but she did.
Held: The solicitor had acted correctly: ‘The function of committal is to see if there . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.424200