Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 April 1966 |
| Date | 01 April 1966 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836603000203 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
RE-OPENING
THE
CASE FOR
THE
PROSECUTION
Webb
v. Leadbitter
INthe above case (The Times, 28 January, 1966)
the
question
arose whether on a summary trial magistrates can call a
witness for
the
prosecution after they have retired to consider
their decision. Surprising though it may seem, there does
not
appear to be any reported case in which this question had
previously arisen for consideration.
The
material facts were
that
on
the
28
June
1965
the
defendant was charged before Lancashire justices sitting at
Eccles with driving without due care
and
attention.
There
were two witnesses for
the
prosecution. When the case was
called on one of these witnesses had
not
arrived at court.
The
prosecution decided to go on with the witness who was there
and
that
witness was duly called.
The
defendant
then
gave
evidence and
the
case for
the
defence was closed. While
the
justices were deliberating they were informed
that
the second
witness, whose car had broken down, had arrived.
There-
upon
the
justices decided to call the witness, who was examined
and
cross-examined.
The
justices once more retired and
convicted
the
defendant, who appealed by case stated in which
the
justices asked
the
opinion of the High Court whether they
were wrong in point of law to allow
the
second witness to give
evidence after they had retired to consider their decision.
On
the
27 January 1966 the appeal came before a Divi-
sional Court consisting of
Lord
Parker C.J.,
Winn
L.J. and
Sachs J. who allowed the appeal for reasons stated by the
Lord
Chief Justice. His Lordship after quoting the facts above
summarised said that it was quite clearly
the
law
that
once the
prosecution has closed their case there is no general right to
call evidence except in rebuttal of some matter which
the
defence has raised and which could not have reasonably been
anticipated: see
the
Magistrates' Courts Rules 1952, rule
7(4); R. v. Harris (1927 2
K.B.
587).
It
was an established
rule of law
that
on
the
trial of an indictment no evidence may
88
To continue reading
Request your trial