||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 521 (Jul)
Maurice Kay and Crane JJ
||John Lofthouse (instructed by Coffin Mew & Clover, Portsmouth) for the appellant.
||Stephen Parish (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Ludgate Hill) for the respondent.
||30 July 2003
Criminal evidence and procedure - Trial - Submission of no case to answer - Justices appearing to accede to submission of no case to answer - Prosecution notifying justices of error following reasons - Justices re-opening case - Entitlement of justices to re-open case.
Justices were entitled to re-open a case despite acceding to a submission of no case to answer where an error had been identified by the prosecution and it had been agreed by the defendant after the justices had given their reasons. In those circumstances, the process of the adjudication had not been completed and the justices were not functus officio. Furthermore, of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 was not in mandatory terms, and did not preclude evidence being given from another source as to the qualification of the medical practitioner and as to consent. That was made plan by the use of the word 'may' in the section
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary