R v Gleeson
The defence must not take advantage of defects in the prosecution case by ambush at trial, and the judge may allow the prosecution to amend the indictment to correct an error identified late by the defence.
Facts
Mr Gleeson was charged with conspiracy to defraud, but the indictment was defective because it charged an offence which did not fit the facts. His counsel did not raise the point until after the prosecution had closed its case, when he submitted that there was no case to answer on the charge as framed. The judge allowed the prosecution to amend the indictment, and the case proceeded on the amended charge. Mr Gleeson appealed, arguing that the amendment should not have been allowed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Auld LJ said that the modern criminal process, under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the Criminal Procedure Rules, requires the defence to identify the issues in dispute before trial, and that it is no longer acceptable for the defence to take tactical advantage of a defect in the prosecution case by remaining silent until it is too late for the prosecution to correct it. For defence advocates to seek to take advantage of such errors by deliberately delaying identification of the issues is no longer acceptable. The amendment had caused no unfairness to the defendant.
Related cases on prosecution decisions, abuse of process and pre-trial matters
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 2001) [2003] UKHL 68, [2004] 2 AC 72
- Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 1254
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45, [2010] 1 AC 345
- R v Abu Hamza [2006] EWCA Crim 2918, [2007] QB 659
- R v Grant [2005] EWCA Crim 1089, [2006] QB 60
- R v H and C [2004] UKHL 3, [2004] 2 AC 134
- R v Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42
Studying criminal procedure? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
