の
شار
- 5 -
(5)
established rules of evidence and not upon the timing of the objection; and it is considered wrong in principle to seek to exclude evidence by way of procedure. In response to the concern expressed, the Administration has agreed that where there has been no objection at the preparatory hearing, the defence will not be prevented from raising late objections even after the jury has been empanelled but the judge will have the discretion to order the defence to pay any additional costs properly incurred by the prosecution.
Introduction of evidence after
lled
jury has been empanelled
(Clause 16(3))
lause
This provision prevents the defence from introducing evidence, after the jury has been empanelled, which is inconsistent with the defence response, except with leave of the judge. The Bar Association and the Law Soceity argue strongly that this clause is unfair and makes it less likely for the defence to take a positive and co-operative approach when it has to indicate all the facts which it takes issue with
the prosecution and when it is so severely proscribed by the consequences of not taking such issue. The Administration however argues that the purpose of the Bill is to save time and money by allowing the parties to concentrate their energies on the real areas of dispute. having identified these areas, the parties were at liberty, without leave, to open up new areas
1 the position would be that an
ambush situation
If,
might develop, and the legislation would then serve no useful purpose.
Page 105Page 106