Malcolm v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin) |
| Date | 27 February 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Justices could, in special circumstances, receive further evidence after they had retired to consider their verdict.
The Queen's Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton) so held on February 27, 2007, when dismissing an appeal by way of case stated by the defendant, Ms Narinder Malcolm, against her conviction by Barnet Justices for driving a motor vehicle on a road when the proportion of alcohol in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit.
The issue was whether the justices were right to exercise their discretion to admit further evidence after they had returned to court and started to announce their decision on one point of law. They had then allowed the prosecution to adduce further evidence on a point raised by defence counsel in her final speech.
MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURTON said that it was the duty of the defence to make the real issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
-
Markey v Minister for Justice and Others
...1 IR 60 and Fitzgerald v DPP [2003] 3 IR 247 applied - Kennedy v DPP [2007] IEHC 3 (Unrep, MacMenamin J, 11/1/2007), Malcolm v DPP [2007] 1 WLR 1230, Murray v UK [1996] 22 EHRR 29, Averill v UK [2001] 31 EHRR 36 and Salabiaku v France [1991] 13 EHRR 379 followed - Williams v Florida (1970)......
- The Queen (on the application of New London College Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Wilcock v Lancaster City Council
-
'Proof by Case Management' and Other Myths about the Criminal Procedure Rules
...to argue against it. Footnotes 'The End of the Ambush', Current Law and Justice Weekly. 2009, 173(49), p. 781-782 Malcolm v DPP [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin), paragraph 31, per Stanley Burnton J.. and see R v Penner [2010] EWCA Crim 1155 at paragraph 18 R (DPP) v Chorley Justices [2006] EWHC 1795......
-
Table of Cases
....................................................... Mahoney v DPP, unreported, CO 2344/96, DC! 119 Malcolm v DPP [2007] EWHC 363 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 1230, ..................................................... ! [2007] 2 Cr App R 1, [2007] RTR 27, DC! 590 ........... Marsh (Ian), R on the ap......
-
Other Issues
...Appellant.” The answers to all three questions were yes; appeal dismissed. CHAPTER 12: OTHER ISSUES Malcolm v DPP [2007] EWHC 363 (QB), [2007] 1 WLR 1230, [2007] 2 Cr App R 1, [2007] RTR 27, 27 February 2007, QBD (DC) On the facts of this case (defence raising, in its closing speech, whethe......
-
Defence Participation through Pre-Trial Disclosure: Issues and Implications
...See, for example, R (on the application of DPP) vChorley Justices and Andrew Forrest [2006] EWHC 1795(Admin); Malcolm vDPP [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 1230; Brett vDPP [2009] EWHC 440(Admin), [2009] 1 WLR 2530; Writtle vDPP [2009] EWHC 236 (Admin), [2009] RTR 28; RvPenner [2010]EW......
-
Adversarialism goes West
...2 Cr App R 49(5), CA,RvGul (Hamesh) [2013] 1 WLR 1136, CA, and RvWhite (Anthony) [2014] 2 Cr App R 194(14), CA.32. Malcolm vDPP [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin) at [31].33. This was foreshadowed in Gleeson, above n. 38 at [35].McConville and Marsh ‘earliest opportunity’. Defence barristers have a du......