Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Prosecution entitled to reconfigure its case following acquittal on some counts and disagreement on others
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses to restrain trial of applicant where he had been acquitted on certain counts - with the jury failing to agree on others - in an earlier trial, on the grounds that: (a) the prosecution was entitled to reconfigure its case and there was no constitutional bar to doing so; (b) whether to bring to the jury's attention the acquittal on certain other counts at the earlier trial would be an agonising choice for the applicant and more particularly for his legal advisers, but this would not make the trial unfair; and (c) even if that were not the case, any potential unfairness could be cured within the ordinary criminal process.
Application for prohibition of trial - applicant had previously been tried and acquitted on some counts, with the jury disagreeing on others - applicant accused of sexual assault of a grandchild when she was 15 years old - applicant had already unsuccessfully applied to trial judge to stop his trial - whether unfairness arose from fact that prosecution would be altering its case significantly to take account of the acquittal on certain counts - whether the applicant would face an impossible dilemma as to whether to refer to the previous acquittal or not.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
