The court considered the status in evidence of a used air ticket.
Held: Where the prosecution have available evidence to establish an essential part of the case for the prosecution, that evidence should be called as part of the case for the prosecution, and the prosecution should not, as a matter of proper practice, seek to supplement and complete the case for the prosecution by cross examination of the accused.
The court accepted into evidence an airline ticket displaying the name of the accused on the basis that its relevance and legal admissibility stemmed from the likelihood that a ticket with a name or names on it had been used on a flight by a person of that name or names on the ticket. The ticket could be used to infer that the accused had taken the flight to which the ticket applied. The court distinguished the relevance and probative significance of the ticket itself as opposed to its content.
A trial judge’s discretion must be exercised within the limits imposed by the case law and in such a way and subject to such safeguards as seem to the judge best suited to achieve justice between the Crown and the defendant.
Judges:
Winn J
Citations:
[1963] 1 QB 857, [1963] 1 All ER 832, (1963) 47 Cr App R 79, [1963] 2 WLR 585
Cited by:
Cited – Pershad, Regina v CACD 10-Apr-2014
The defendant appealed against his conviction for cheating the public revenue. He said that the prosection had been allowed to produce and use at trial evidence not previously disclosed. As a practicing barrister he had not paid his VAT for 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Evidence
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.524025