TRIAL PROCEDURES

Mai multe ca aceasta

Central topic

după Jez Koekemoer

Persuasion

după גיא פנחסי

APA Citation Style

după Sunem Beaton

Website Credibility

după melissa lambert

TRIAL PROCEDURES

Judgment

PP may decline to further prosecute at any stage of the trial

A discharge under s 232(1) shall not amount to an acquittal unless the court so directs

Goh Cheng Chuan v PP [1990] 1 SLR(R) 660 (HC)

Convict

Defence will mitigate sentence before sentence is passed

All imprisonment sentences must be pronounced in the accused’s presence

Imprisonment

Community orders

Death Penalty

Caning

Fine

Judgement should be delivered in open court in the presence of both parties

Accused must be present in an exception of S154 of the CPC

an offence punishable by fine only or by imprisonment for 12 months or less, or both

a etter plead guilty and agree to pay any fine that may be imposed for that offence

appear by an advocate

Acquit

Closing Submissions

Both parties will be allowed to exchange their submissions and allowed to reply to the other’s submissions.

Defence to first make closing submissions followed by prosecution.

Prosecution Rebuttal Witness

The prosecution may call a witness or recall and re-examine a witness for the purpose of rebutting any aspect of the defence case

Recall of witness following charge revision - s. 131 CPC: Unless the court determines that the application is frivolous, vexatious, or intended to impede or delay justice, the prosecution and accused may call back and re-examine any witness.

Recalling of witnesses in ancillary hearing - s 279(6) CPC: Court may allow any witnesses (in an ancillary hearing) to be recalled in the interest of justice.

Court will only allow this if prosecution was misled or taken by surprise

Defence Case

Standart allocution of S230 of the CPC after Prosecution has made out a case

Accused must give evidence on oath or affirmation

Accused chooses to remain silent

Counsel must warn accused of ss 230(1)(m) and 261(1) CPC where the court may draw adverse inferences from the accused’s refusal to give evidence if there is Counsel must warn accused of ss 230(1)(m) and 261(1) CPC where the court may draw adverse inferences from the accused’s refusal to give evidence

Unavoidable result of adverse inference against accused if choose to remain silent

If the accused person mental and physical condition makes it undesirable to not remain silent

The court is prohibited to have any adverse inference against accused- S261 of the CPC

PP v Ramachandran Santhana Mohan [2015]SGDC 84 at [38]-[40]:-

The appellant's silence served as a last piece of evidence in the chain of evidence, proving the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when taken into account in conjunction with other pieces of evidence.

The appellant gave the trial judge an extra consideration when determining whether the appellant's guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by failing to refute the evidence, which as it stood would have supported his conviction if left unchallenged.

The trial judge would have to decide whether the accused's guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the prosecution's witnesses' whole case as well as any appropriate conclusions that could be made from his silence.

Accused agrees to give evidence

The burden of proof is on the prosecution Prosecution must prove it's case

There is no obligation for defence to proof evidence

Subtopic

No Case to Answer

Prima Facie case-at first sight Must be proved

the court is of the view that there is some evidence which is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each and every element of the charge as framed by the prosecutor or as altered or framed by the court, the court must call on the accused to give his defence.

that the evidence on the primary facts is true unless the evidence is inherently incredible

The test does not apply to determine if all of the evidence examined will definitely and inevitably lead to a single conclusion.

Essentially, at the conclusion of the prosecution's case, the judge should ask himself, not, "Has the prosecution's evidence already done so," but rather, "If I were to accept the Prosecution's evidence as accurate, would it establish the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt?"

The credibility of the witnesses and the quality of the evidence are not issues for the court at this point. If the credibility is only questioned, questions still need to be answered. Evidence should only be disregarded if it is irrational, or if a reasonable person could find it to be true.

Until all evidence on behalf of the prosecution and defence has been heard, the judge should be open-minded about the truthfulness and accuracy of the recollections of the witnesses. There's no reason to wonder if the witness's evidence is questionable. Acceptance of the evidence is required unless it is manifestly implausible.

If Prima Facie is not Satisfied

The court must order a discharge amounting to an acquittal

Acquittal of accused

Threshold of No Case to answer

Some evidencec

Evidence not inherently incredible

Accept evidence as accurate

Evidence establishes each essential element of the offence

Close Prosecution Case & No Case to answer submission

The prosecution will inform the court that it is closing its case

Defence can make a submission that the evidence does not disclose a case to answer

Examination of Prosecution Witnesses

Witnesses are examined according to S137 to S168 of evidence act

Re-Examination by Prosecution for the purpose of clarifying certain issues

Prosecution can summon any witness deem fit

Cross Examination by defence questioning Prosecution witnesses

Commencement of Prosecution Case

Relay story to judge to understand case

Statements

Decide who is going to help to prove

Witnesses

Prove all elements of charge

Eg:Dishonest intention etc