Smith v DPP [2008] EWHC 771 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 263 (Mar)
Following a submission of no case to answer, a district judge permitted the prosecution to recall their main witness.
HELD “Prosecuting authorities should not be encouraged to believe that they can re-open a case to adduce evidence which was available to them but which they did not adduce before a case was closed.
Sloppiness would result if it were thought that omissions could routinely be made good by the Crown at a later stage in the proceedings. On the other hand, the interests of the defendant must be balanced against the public interest in ensuring that those who have committed crimes should be convicted” (Lord Justice Dyson at 5).
The judge’s decision to allow the Crown to reopen its case was not a plainly wrong exercise of his discretion. The witness had already given evidence that the person who committed the offence was the accused and the judge was entitled to permit the prosecution to strengthen its case by allowing the witness to give
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
