Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2006] All ER (D) 266 (Oct)
Court: Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Judge:

Latham LJ and Mackay J
Representation Quincy Whitaker (instructed by GT Stewart) for the claimant.
  Louis Mably (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the prosecution.
Judgment Dates: 23 October 2006

Catchwords

Magistrates - Procedure - Evidence - Advance information - Defence requesting disclosure of video evidence - Prosecution not disclosing evidence before plea taken - Youth court refusing adjournment for defence to consider evidence - Video evidence subsequently disclosed - Whether necessary for decision to refuse adjournment to be quashed.

The Case

Where a claimant had pleaded not guilty to an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm which had been caught on close circuit television and had only pleaded guilty once the recording had been viewed, the question whether or not a claimant had pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity was an issue which depended upon the Youth Court's assessment at the time of sentencing as to whether or not it would have been proper for the defendant to have pleaded guilty before he viewed the CCTV recording of the alleged offence. There was no requirement for the court to quash the refusal of the youth court to adjourn the matter in order that the claimant could view the recording before his plea was taken, since the challenge was only of historical interest.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • 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