header-logo header-logo

18 October 2018 / Victor Smith
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Features , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Who’s in the dock?

In the first of a two-part series, Victor Smith traces the origins of the principle that a charge cannot be amended by substituting one defendant for another

  • The source and history of the power to amend.
  • A defendant named cannot be substituted for another person, but an error in the name of the correct defendant may be amended.
  • The application of this principle to corporate defendants.

There is nothing more fundamental to the administration of justice than that the person who is suspected of committing an offence is the one who has to face the charge. It is imperative that the correct defendant is identified, named and proceeded against within any applicable statutory time constraints. Equally, it would be anathema if a guilty party was able to escape justice by reason of a processing error in relation to its name. Fortunately, the position is that the defendant named in an information (or written charge) or summons (or requisition) cannot be amended so as to substitute a different person or legal entity, but an error in the name of a correctly identified defendant can

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll