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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll