Divisional Courts
| Date | 01 July 1973 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837303700303 |
| Published date | 01 July 1973 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional
Courts
COMMITTAL
PROCEEDINGS:
EVIDENCE
FOR
PROSECUTION
R.
v. Epping and Harlow Justices: ex parte Massaro
THE above case (1973 2
W.L.R.
158) raised the question
whether
the
prosecution is obliged to call in committal
proceedings aperson whom
the
defendant wishes to be present so
that
such person
can
be cross-examined.
The
above question was raised on
an
application for certio-
rari
to
quash
the
committal to Chelmsford
Crown
Court
of
the
defendant Raffaele Massaro on a charge of indecent assault on
a girl
contrary
to s.14 of the Sexual Offences 1956.
The
ground
of
the
application was
that
the
prosecution
had
refused arequest
by
the
defence to call
the
girl before
the
examining justices,
the
prosecution being willing to rely on
other
witnesses to
make
out
a
prima
facie case.
The
application
came
on
the
15 December 1972 before a
Divisional
Court
consisting of
Lord
Widgery
C.].,
Ashworth
and
Willis JJ. when
Lord
Widgery gave
the
leading
judgment
refusing
the
application. His Lordship said
that
the decision of
the
Court
turned
on
the
question as to
the
function of committal
proceedings.
The
prosecution maintained
that
they were intended
as a safeguard to ensure
that
no
one should be
brought
to
trial
for an indictable offence unless there was some
prima
facie
evidence of his guilt.
The
defence contended
that
the
proceedings
served as a rehearsal to
the
trial so
that
the
defence could test
the
credibility of
the
witnesses for
the
prosecution by cross-
examining them.
The
point
at
issue was
not
the
subject of
any
reported case.
In
his Lordship's view
the
function of committal
proceedings was to
make
sure
that
no one stood his trial unless
a
prima
facie
had
been
made
out.
The
prosecution
did
not
wish
this little girl to be subjected twice to the ordeal of cross-
examination.
In
his
judgment
the
decision
whether
to call a
particular
witness, albeit avery
important
one, was entirely within
the
discretion of
the
prosecution. Consequently
the
omission to call
a witness could
not
be a
breach
of
the
principles of
natural
justice.
He
would refuse
the
application.
158
To continue reading
Request your trial