Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The accused would suffer no real prejudice. The forum in which he would be tried would be the same. The charge would be within the scope of the original petition even though it would be more serious than the present charge. It was true that an error had been made when the original instruction had been given to indict, but this error should not be compounded. If the motion to desert pro loco et tempore were granted it would still be open to the accused to put forward a plea in bar of trial on the ground of oppression in respect of the fresh indictment. The motion should therefore be granted.
In a brief reply Mr Williamson pointed out that the Crown's state of knowledge now was the same as when the present indictment had been framed. He stated (and Mrs Williams accepted this) that their discussion had included a discussion of the state of the evidence.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.