- Indictment amendments—is the defence case too late for the prosecution to amend? (R v Bond and Goble)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- The factual background
- The late amendment of the indictment
- The covert surveillance
- What did the court decide?
- The indictment
- The admissibility of the covert surveillance
- Case details
Corporate Crime analysis: The trial judge’s decision to allow a late prosecution application to amend the indictment was upheld by the court. An application to add named co-conspirators to the indictment was made after the defendant had been giving evidence for over a week and towards the end of cross-examination by the prosecution. The court held that the amendment at that stage of the case was, in the circumstances, and in the absence of prejudice to the defendant, both permissible and justified. Incriminating evidence obtained from a covert recording device installed in a police vehicle, even when not lawfully authorised under section 28 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), was held correctly not to have been excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984). Written by Jane Osborne, Queen’s Counsel, at 2 Harcourt Buildings.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial