Search Results

exceptions and cases in which the accused raises the defence of insanity, in criminal proceedings the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving all facts essential to their case. It follows

each case, in many or most cases a judge might consider four points to put to the jury: (1) to consider the case for and against each accused separately; (2) to decide the case on all

and the range of cases triable without a jury has been extended to include certain fraud trials, cases in which there is a danger of jury tampering, and rare cases in which: [T]he

because the prosecution case was that L had been the principal, T the aider and abettor, but that it did not establish that L and T were racing, the essential issue at T’s trial. The

subsequently gives evidence, putting forward no more than a bare denial of an essential part of the prosecution’s case. As Toulson LJ pointed out in Smith (Troy) [2011] EWCA Crim 1098 at

criminal and civil cases be considered separately. Criminal cases Speaking generally, the legal burden of proving any fact essential to the prosecution case rests upon the prosecution

in criminal cases must follow and apply the rules, which are not mere guidance. Compliance is compulsory and the word ‘must’ means must. See Leveson LJ, Essential case management:

burden in relation to all those facts essential to the Crown case. If the prosecution fail to adduce sufficient evidence in relation to an essential element of the offence, they fail not

of the essential intractability of some of the questions that the courts have to address. It will not escape readers’ attention that, in two of the three House of Lords’ cases since

[24], In such cases it is essential that the jury is given assistance as to the relevance of the gang evidence that is tailored to the facts of the individual case, being told in simple

this occurrence: [T]he plain fact is that where a case depends on the evidence of a very young child it is absolutely essential (a) that the ABE interview takes place very soon after

long in order to take in its essential features, especially when there is good reason for it to be imprinted on the mind of the observer, as was the case here.’ 12.6 The identifying

Discretion to exclude evidence in civil cases Discretion to exclude evidence in civil cases – Judicial discretion in criminal cases to warn of the dangers of relying on the evidence

of the prosecution case, but also at the close of the defence case. 68 In exceptional cases, a ruling can be made even before the close of the prosecution case, on the depositions

not a fair trial …Even in the context of a criminal case there is no such automatic exclusion’ (at [11]). It was, however, essential to evaluate the weight to be accorded to this evidence

defence Under the old law, one particular issue arose with some regularity. In cases in which it was essential for the defendant to launch an attack on someone else’s character in order

that assertions of a need to know such details (because essential to the running of a defence) are justified. In some cases, the informant is an informant and no more; in others he

demand that this fourth ‘essential’ direction be given: see R v Birchall [1999] Crim LR 311, CA. See also R v El-Hannachi [1998] 2 Cr App R 226, CA. In both cases, failure to give the

expert evidence. 55 DPP v A & B C Chewing Gum Ltd 56 was not an ‘ordinary case’, but ‘a very special case’ 57 which should be regarded as ‘highly exceptional and confined to its own

civil and criminal cases The competence of witnesses in civil and criminal cases – Competence to testify in a civil case Competence to testify in a civil case – Competence to