R v Wells
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 01 December 1994 |
Date | 01 December 1994 |
Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Kennedy, Mr Justice Kay and Mr Justice Mitchell
Criminal procedure - indictments - power to amend
Once an indictment was in existence, the power to amend it was that contained in the Indictments Act 1915 and rules made thereunder.
The power to amend was not affected by the restriction on preferring indictments contained in section 2(2) of the Administration of Justice 1933, which was concerned only with the question of what offences might be included in the bill of indictment when it was preferred.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held, in a reserved judgment, dismissing an appeal by Derek Wells against a decision of Mr Recorder Katkhuda on July 19, 1993, at Isleworth Crown Court, to give leave for an indictment against him to be amended by adding five counts of handling stolen goods.
Section 2 of the 1933 Act provides: "(2) Subject as hereinafter provided no bill of indictment charging any person with an indictable offence shall be preferred unless either (a) the person charged has been committed for trial for the offence; or ....(b) the bill is preferred by the direction or with the consent of a judge of the High Court .... Provided that (i) where the person charged has been committed for trial, the bill of indictment against him may include, either in substitution for, or in addition to, counts charging the offence for which he was committed, any counts founded on fact or evidence disclosed in any examination or deposition … being counts which may lawfully be joined in the same indictment."
Mr Thomas Kark, assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr Anthony Heaton Armstrong for the Crown.
MR JUSTICE KAY, giving the judgment of the court, said that, following previous complications, the Crown applied for leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment against the appellant. The bill was endorsed by a High Court judge and became an indictment.
Shortly before the hearing counsel for the Crown learnt of its contents, which were not in accordance with the advice he had given. He informed counsel for the appellant that he would be applying to amend the new indictment at the hearing.
Counsel for the appellant indicated that he would be objecting to the bill of indictment on the ground that it charged the appellant with a number of identifiable handling offences in one rolled up count contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v Hemmings
...even if the indictment had, for example, been preferred as a voluntary bill pursuant to leave granted by a High Court judge. In Wells [1995] 2 Cr App R 417, the trial judge had permitted the amendment of a voluntary bill of indictment preferred pursuant to the leave of a High Court judge. I......
-
R v Allcock
...from the authorities that amendments can be made to voluntary bills, as well as to indictments, if they are defective, (see R v Wells [1995] 2 Cr App R 417 at 422C) to which Mr Arlidge also drew our attention. 26 Furthermore, an indictment of whatever origin is defective if it fails to incl......