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 considered the applicable law, and applied the discretion given to them properly.
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 308
Statutes:
Computer Misuse Act 1990 1(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Shephard HL 16-Dec-1992
The defendant had been convicted of theft from a supermarket. The evidence was that the till rolls did not include the goods the subject of the charge. She argued that it should not have been admitted as evidence, without supporting evidence that . .
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 – Regina v Vincent Munnery CACD 1992
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Magistrates
Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.137253