header-logo header-logo

18 October 2018 / Victor Smith
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Who’s in the dock?

In the first of a two-part series, Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another

  • The source and history of the power to amend.
  • A defendant named cannot be substituted for another person, but an error in the name of the correct defendant may be amended.
  • The application of this principle to corporate defendants.

There is nothing more fundamental to the administration of justice than that the person who is suspected of committing an offence is the one who has to face the charge. It is imperative that the correct defendant is identified, named and proceeded against within any applicable statutory time constraints. Equally, it would be anathema if a guilty party was able to escape justice by reason of a processing error in relation to its name. Fortunately, the position is that the defendant named in an information (or written charge) or summons (or requisition) cannot be amended so as to substitute a different person or legal entity, but

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll