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: ‘Quite clearly there is nothing in these decisions to sustain the argument for the appellant that the law admits of only two situations in which further evidence may be called, and that the Court in Francis ( supra) was wrong to open up a more general discretion in its proposition (7). Quite the reverse. They demonstrate, as would be expected, that the judge must be left with some degree of freedom to meet the various and unpredictable problems which may arise during a trial. Our only hesitation is whether the extra cases might perhaps have led the court to state its seventh proposition in rather less restrictive terms. On balance we think not, although it might perhaps be expanded by the addition, after the concluding words, of ‘..especially when the evidence is tendered after the case for the defendant has begun’.’ and ‘These are important considerations which the judge must always bear in mind, but they are not necessarily conclusive. Tactics are a legitimate part of the adversarial process, but justice is what matters: justice to the public, represented by the prosecution, as well as to the defendant. Undeniably, if he had declined to admit the evidence he could not have been criticised. The question is whether by letting it in he stepped outside the reasonable bounds of the discretion and thereby created a real risk of injustice.’
Judges:
Mustill LJ
Citations:
[1992] 94 Cr App R 164
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Yearly 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 . .
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 – 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.193590
