Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:20:19.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Procedural Anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2000

Get access

Extract

For centuries, English criminal procedure regarded the “surprise witness” as a legitimate weapon, for the prosecution as well as the defence. In a case in 1823 Park J. complained that the defendant had seen the depositions in advance of trial. “The prosecutor or his solicitor might have access to them, but not the party accused. For what would be the consequence if the latter had access to them? Why, that he would know everything which was to be produced in evidence against him—an advantage which it was never intended should be extended towards him …” (J.F. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), vol. I, p. 228).

Type
Case and Comment
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)