The prosecutor had closed his case, and the defendant had presented some evidence. It became clear that the prosecutor had failed to present evidence on one element, and the defendant appealed his conviction after the prosecutor had been allowed to re-open his case to present that evidence.
Held: It was too wide a statement to say that the only material consideration was whether the interests of justice would be best served by allowing the witness to be called. The court had always to bear in mind the principle that the prosecution case should be brought to an end before the defence was called on to meet that case. ‘Almost any additional relevant evidence will be of value to a jury, and if the only question one had to ask oneself was: was justice more likely to be done if the jury heard this evidence, the result may well be almost any fact arising late in a trial would be let in by an ever-widening door. It is clear that that is not the practice in our courts. The rule that the prosecution must finish their case once and for all before the defence starts is a very important and salutary one.’ However: ‘On these very special facts, it seems to us that the exercise of the Judge’s discretion did not step outside the narrow limits of the discretion which a judge can exercise in allowing the prosecution to call further evidence. There was no prejudice to the appellant in this case. If there had been even a possibility of prejudice to the appellant, the court would have taken the view that the judge’s exercise of discretion was wrong.’
Judges:
Lawton LJ
Citations:
[1974] 60 Crim App R 1
Cited by:
Cited – Christopher 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Sheppard HL 1993
Where the prosecutor wishes to rely on evidence set out in a document produced by a computer, there must be affirmative evidence as to the computer’s reliability in accordance with the requirements of Section 69. It can be either oral evidence or a . .
Cited – James v South Glamorgan County Council 1992
On trial of a charge of supplying a motor vehicle in an un-roadworthy condition, a prosecution witness (the person to whom the vehicle was supplied) had difficulty in locating the Court House. Before he arrived, the prosecution had closed its case, . .
Cited – Tuck 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.195671