Charge Sheet in UK Law

Where the matter under investigation is a suspected offence contrary to section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is really conceded by Mr Jennings, and in my view rightly conceded, that in this jurisdiction the public interest requires that the obtaining of breath specimens part of the investigation cannot be delayed to any significant extent in order to enable a suspect to take legal advice.

The judge therefore held that the defendant was indeed actively instrumental in setting the law in motion against the plaintiff. She wanted the plaintiff to be arrested and dealt with from the start, and that is what she achieved in causing DC Haynes to obtain the warrant from the magistrate. She was the only person who could testify about the alleged indecent exposure. She was therefore to be regarded as a prosecutor in setting the law in motion against him.

Whereas in truth he has only to be satisfied that there is a proper case to lay before the court, or in the words of Lord Mansfield, that there is a probable cause "to bring the accused to a fair and impartial trial", see Johnstone v. Sutton (1786) 1 T.R. 493 at p. 547. After all, he cannot judge whether the witnesses are telling the truth.

The defendant at the trial is usually pressed, as he was in the present case, to declare that he no longer believes that the plaintiff was guilty. They may not appreciate unless they are carefully directed in the summing-up that there is a substantial difference between a case that warrants the making of a charge and one that survives the test of cross-examination with sufficient strength left in it to require consideration by a jury which is concerned only with guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Since it is a question of fact and degree this court will not lightly interfere with the judgment of the court below which has heard the evidence. On such an issue it is not enough that this court might have reached a different conclusion. An appellant against conviction must be able to demonstrate that any reasonable court would have concluded that there was delay and/or that the person held in custody was not permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable.

The grounds of appeal focus primarily on whether the Tribunal's decisions are consistent with Mr Adil's article 10 rights. Ground 1 is that the conclusions on misconduct and impairment were contrary to article 10(1) because they give rise to an interference with article 10 rights that is not “prescribed by law” that, for that reason alone, does not meet the requirements laid down within article 10(2) and is unlawful.

Accusation is broad enough to encompass the accusation of a witness or witnesses and the offence charged in consequence. By making a request for extradition, reliance is placed upon the evidence of any witness and the offence disclosed thereby. The protection afforded by the sub-section would be rendered "sterile", as Mr Nicholls submitted, if the issue of bad faith could be divorced from the underlying facts supporting the request.