JL v DPP [2009] EWHC 238 (Admin) – TA – r 1.1 CrimPR.
– continuity of evidence – inference.
1) the overriding objective confirms that a criminal trial is not a one sided obstacle race.
2) break in continuity is not fatal to proving a case to answer if continuity can be inferred.
- if D intends to rely on break in continuity he should challenge witnesses so that the line of defence can be investigated.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- Malcolm v DPP [2007] EWHC 363 (Admin) - s 7(7) RTA - CrimPR.
- defence ambush. - r 3.3 CrimPR - duty of D to make the real issues clear at the latest before close of P's case. - discretion to allow P to call evidence even after magistrates begin to give their decision.