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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll