Quarterly Summary
| Published date | 01 October 1965 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836502900410 |
| Date | 01 October 1965 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Quarterly Summary
(Extended reports
of
some
of
the
cases
here summarised will
be
given in our next issue.-Editor)
PROSECUTION WITNESS NOT CALLED
R. v. Oliva
TWO witnesses gave evidence at
the
committal proceedings
for the prosecution
but
later, before the trial, they made
contradictory statements and were unwilling to repeat their
original stories. Their names were on the back of
the
indict-
ment when the accused was committed for trial
but
the prose-
cution decided not to call them as witnesses.
The
defence,
however, called them and they were then effectively cross-
examined by the prosecution.
The
defendant was convicted
and appealed on the ground that the trial judge had been
wrong in law in holding that the prosecution was not bound
to call or to tender for cross-examination the two witnesses.
The
Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding
that the prosecution had a discretion whether or not to call
such witnesses even though their names were on the back of
the indictment.
The
prosecution had to exercise that discre-
tion in a manner which would further the interests of justice
and be fair to the defence and, in so doing, had to call all
witnesses whose evidence was capable of belief even if their
evidence was inconsistent with the case that the prosecution
sought to prove. (1965, 1 W.L.R. 1028.)
"DANGEROUS OR OFFENSIVE
WEAPON"
Smaje v. Balmer
By s. 28 of the Larceny Act, 1916, every person who shall
be found by
night-(I)
"armed with any dangerous or offen-
sive weapon or instrument, with intent to break or enter into
any building or to commit any felony therein; or (2) having in
his possession without lawful excuse (the proof whereof shall
lie on such person) any key, picklock, crow, jack, bit, or other
3°9
To continue reading
Request your trial