header-logo header-logo

Who’s in the dock?

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

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll