Malcolm v DPP [2007] EWHC 363 (QB), [2007] All ER (D) 344 (Feb)
The issue was whether or not the magistrates, who had retired to consider their verdict, and had announced their decision adverse to the prosecution on a point raised by defence counsel in her final speech, were entitled to permit the prosecution to call further evidence to meet that point.
HELD Criminal trials are no longer to be treated as a game, in which each move is final and any omission by the prosecution leads to its failure. It is the duty of the defence to make its defence and the issues it raises clear to the prosecution and to the court at an early stage.
Even in a relatively straightforward trial in the magistrates’ court—where there is no requirement of a defence statement or a pre-trial review—it is the duty of the defence to make the real issues clear, at the latest, before the prosecution closes its case.
Following Webb v Leadbetter [1966] 2 All ER 114, magistrates have a discretion to receive further evidence after they have retired to consider their verdict, but
