C appealed against a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. C contended that the trial judge sitting with lay magistrates should not have taken a decision to permit counsel for the Crown to reopen its case, following the closing speech by C's counsel, without consulting the lay justices and that the application should not have been permitted in any event. The court held that a ruling as to whether the additional evidence sought to be adduced by the Crown was admissible by way of recall was a matter of law and therefore the exclusive preserve of the judge, and, further, that the exercise of discretion could not be impugned.

QBD (Schiemann LJ, Poole J)


0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Skip to toolbar