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.
[2] The defendant is charged on the original indictment with 171 offences relating to about 70 complainants in respect of about 200 transactions involving total payments of �5,425,000, whereas Part 1 of the proposed indictment contains only 28 counts with 7 complainants in respect of payments amounting to �525,000. Part 2 of the proposed indictment contains the remaining 143 counts.
[4] This application has been brought because the prosecution originally lodged the indictment containing 171 counts, and when the matter first came before the court it was indicated to the prosecution by the court that the indictment was overloaded, and that a much smaller number of counts would be more appropriate. The application to invoke s. 17 of the 2004 Act is the prosecution's response to that indication.
[7] An objection made by Mr O'Hare is that the sample counts in Part 1 of the proposed indictment are not truly representative of the counts in Part 2 (the linked counts) connected to the sample counts in Part 1. He developed this argument by suggesting that the Part 2 counts had to be representative of each of the three categories of dishonesty suggested by the prosecution. I should say that the structure of Part 2 of the proposed indictment is that it is divided into groups of counts each numbered by reference to a count in Part 1, thus count 1.1, 1.2, etc.
[14] I consider that if the evidence of any of the 37 additional complainants is admissible as bad character evidence (which remains to be decided) then were all 37 additional complainants to be permitted to give bad character evidence against the defendant in the first part of the trial this would not be in the interests of justice. I consider that it would �
To what extent the court could restrict the prosecution from relying upon evidence that may otherwise be admissible must involve a somewhat rough and ready judgement, but in this case I consider that at most a further 7 complainants from Part 2 would be as many as could be properly admitted in part 1 of the trial. In such an eventuality it would be for the prosecution to put forward the 7 additional complainants upon which it would seek to rely.
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.