"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
.....

Is this usual? I've not done a case like this before and was bemused by
the rapid climb down by the prosecution ...

Yes, assuming it wasn't anything silly like death by dangerous/careless, say
just speed for instance, based on the likely outcome it would simply be a
waste of money to challenge your report, having a Newton hearing in this
instance is simply a way carrying on with the case without having to go
through the process of admitting your report in evidence.

--

regards or otherwise,

Periander

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
Periander. wrote:

Yes, assuming it wasn't anything silly like death by dangerous/careless,
say
just speed for instance, based on the likely outcome it would simply be a
waste of money to challenge your report, having a Newton hearing in this
instance is simply a way carrying on with the case without having to go
through the process of admitting your report in evidence.

Ah righto, I know that since my livelihood depends on it pork pies would
not be a good idea. However I wasn't asked to give an oath and it
bemused me that I *could* have been lying through my teeth,
misrepresenting the evidence or simply unable to do maths. The
prosecution accepted my statement at face value.

Presumably you gave a written report. Did the prosecution have notice of
this before the trial?

I am only used to civil proceedings, but I understand that in criminal
proceedings the defence does not have to disclose its case in advance. If
the defence unexpectedly turns up with a technicial report plus expert
witness on the day of the trial, the prosecution is effectively ambushed.
What happens then? Does the court normally adjourn the case so that the
prosecution can bring in their own expert? What happens if the prosecution
case has already been formally closed?

Geoff

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 04:40:09 +0000, "GB"
wrote:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Periander. wrote:

Yes, assuming it wasn't anything silly like death by dangerous/careless,
say
just speed for instance, based on the likely outcome it would simply be a
waste of money to challenge your report, having a Newton hearing in this
instance is simply a way carrying on with the case without having to go
through the process of admitting your report in evidence.

Ah righto, I know that since my livelihood depends on it pork pies would
not be a good idea. However I wasn't asked to give an oath and it
bemused me that I *could* have been lying through my teeth,
misrepresenting the evidence or simply unable to do maths. The
prosecution accepted my statement at face value.

Presumably you gave a written report. Did the prosecution have notice of
this before the trial?

I am only used to civil proceedings, but I understand that in criminal
proceedings the defence does not have to disclose its case in advance.

This is no longer true, and in relation to expert evidence has not
been true for a good many years (even before the introduction of
"Defence Statements" under the CPIA 1996). An expert report must be
served on the prosecution and the Court in advance.

If the defence unexpectedly turns up with a technicial report plus expert
witness on the day of the trial, the prosecution is effectively ambushed.
What happens then? Does the court normally adjourn the case so that the
prosecution can bring in their own expert?

The court would probably do that (very likely coupled with a wasted
costs order against the defence solicitors) although it has a
discretion simply to disallow the evidence.

What happens if the prosecution
case has already been formally closed?

I don't think that makes a difference. There is a power to allow
evidence in rebuttal, which would be used if necessary.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".