Generally, magistrates are obliged to reach a verdict. Where possible, an uneven number of justices should sit to adjudicate so that any question of failure to agree should not arise. However, if a trial is heard before an even number of magistrates, there is a possibility that they will be equally divided about the verdict. In such circumstances, the court of its own motion should adjourn the case for re-hearing by another bench of magistrates.
The reviewing lawyer should confirm that it is appropriate to allow the case to proceed to a re-trial. Review should take into account the factors listed above where a jury fails to agree on a verdict. The further review of the case should be completed within 14 days of the end of the original trial, or 7 days if the defendant is in custody. Where the Court of Appeal allows an appeal against conviction, it may order the appellant to be re-tried. Section 7 of the Criminal Appeal Act provides that the court determines whether a successful appellant should be re-tried on a fresh indictment preferred by direction of the court.
The court should consider this option of its own motion. However, in cases where the court appears not to be considering ordering a re-trial and there are clear grounds for submitting that the interests of justice would be best served by a re-trial, it may be appropriate to ask the court to consider ordering a re-trial.
Where the Court of Appeal orders a re-trial, the defendant must be arraigned within 2 months of the order unless the Court of Appeal gives leave. The CPS must ensure that the arraignment takes place within 2 months, and that the court knows that this is the case. If a defendant has not been arraigned within 2 months they may apply to the Court of Appeal to set aside the order for the re-trial, and for a direction that the Court of Appeal enter a verdict of acquittal.
Sections 54 - 57 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act CPIA enable the High Court to make an order quashing an acquittal in circumstances where the acquittal resulted from interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness or potential witness. In such circumstances, an acquitted person can be re-tried for the original offence. Under section 54 3 and section 55 CPIA , where a court provides a certificate of tainted acquittal, an application may be made to the High Court for an order quashing the acquittal.
The High Court will make an order if:. Note: These provisions only apply in relation to acquittals in respect of offences alleged to have been committed on or after 15 April A certification of tainted acquittal by either a magistrates' court or the Crown Court shall be made at any time following conviction, but no later than immediately after the court sentences or otherwise deals with the convicted person. A prosecutor in the magistrates' court or prosecuting advocate in the Crown Court should therefore at that time be in a position to remind the court of its powers and to otherwise assist with information in relation to the original case.
This should include the name and address of the original prosecutor and of the acquitted defendant. The decision to seek "certification" should be referred to the Chief Crown Prosecutor or Head of Division. Once the court has "certified" in accordance with section 54 2 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act , the prosecution may apply for the acquittal to be quashed. Applications must be made within 28 days of expiry of the period allowed for giving notice of appeal or for the determination of an appeal in respect of the administration of justice offence.
A prosecutor makes an application for an order quashing an acquittal to the High Court, by way of an originating motion that shall be issued out of the Crown Office. The application shall be accompanied by:. Strict time limits apply in relation to the application to the High Court, as imposed by Order of the Rules of the Supreme Court The acquitted person should be charged for the original offence, which should be proceeded with as though it is a fresh charge.
Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act reforms the law relating to double jeopardy. It allows re- trials in respect of a number of very serious offences, where new and compelling evidence has come to light. Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act applies where a person has been acquitted of a qualifying offence on conviction in England and Wales, on appeal against a conviction, verdict or finding in proceedings on indictment in England and Wales, or on appeal from a decision on such an appeal.
Application for re-trial of serious offences under section 76 3 of the Criminal justice Act double jeopardy case should be referred to the Appeals and Review Unit, Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division.
In the Crown Court, custody time limits cease to apply once a jury is sworn in. If the trial is subsequently aborted, custody time limits do not apply to the period between that trial and a re- trial: R v Crown Court at Leeds, ex parte Whitehead [] EWHC Admin If they have been held in prison during the trial, they will be released immediately. Otherwise the prosecutor may read it out loud or the judge will read it for themselves.
Sentencing guidelines are set by the Sentencing Council in line with the law in England and Wales. You can read more about sentencing on their website. Normally, any time the defendant has already spent in prison waiting for the trial will count as part of their sentence. If you decide not to attend the sentencing hearing then the police will let you know what happened once it has finished.
This trial would have to start afresh, hearing all the evidence again, with a brand new jury. If we decide not to go ahead with another trial we must make formal decision to offer no evidence. That means the case is stopped, the defendant will be acquitted and formally found not guilty of the offence s. Witness Examination Following opening statements, the prosecutor begins direct examination of his first witness. During direct examination, the prosecutor can introduce evidence such as a weapon or something from the crime scene.
The purpose of cross examination is to create doubt as to the credibility of the witness. After the defense attorney cross examines the witness, the prosecutor asks the witness final questions to clarify any confusing testimony for the jury.
This is called redirect examination. Once the process of direct examination, cross examination, and redirect of all the witnesses is complete, the prosecutor rests his case. After the prosecutor rests, no more witnesses can be called to the stand or evidence introduced by the government. After the Government rests, the defense has the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence to the jury.
The defense also has the option of not having the defendant testify. There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that they are innocent. It is the government's responsibility to prove the defendant committed the crime as detailed in the indictment. The fact that a defendant did not testify may not be considered by the jury as proof that the defendant committed the crime.
The defense may also waive his case. If the defense does not put on any evidence, the jury cannot assume that the defendant is guilty simply because they did not put on a defense. The decision to put on a defense is solely up to the defendant and the defense attorney. However, the defense will usually present its own version of the case.
Objections During direct or cross examination, either attorney can make an objection to a question or a piece of evidence to the judge.
For example, a prosecutor or defense attorney may object to the wide range of the direct examination because it is beyond the knowledge of the witness, the attorney may be arguing with the witness rather than asking questions, or the witness may be talking about things irrelevant to the case.
0コメント