It will therefore be seen that the defence response is the
The defence is not obliged to be
key to the improved procedures.
co-operative with the prosecution in narrowing the issues by serving
a meaningful response to the prosecution case statement.
It may
have genuine reasons for adopting a cautious line in its response.
s
The accused does however take the risk of being penalized in costs
under clause 26 if the judge considers that such costs have been
incurred as a result of an unnecessary or improper act or omission
by or on his behalf. Such costs (under amendments to be proposed
in
the committee stage) may be awarded on an indemnity basis, although
sap
not as a pre-condition of taking other steps in the proceedings.
With the consent of the accused, the judge by clause 25 (under
спр
in
at the/com
amendments to be moved at the committee stage) may order that a copy
of the defence response be furnished to the jury.
One further reform introduced by the Bill relates to the
disposition at the preparatory stage of objections to evidence.
Thus under clause 13(1), the judge may order the prosecutor to serve
on the accused and deliver to the court copies of the statements of
the witnesses whom the prosecutor intends to call at the trial after
the jury has been empanelled. Under clause 15(1) the judge may
order the accused to state any objection he has to such evidence,
and under sub clause (3) the ground of his objection. The judge
shall thereafter determine the admissibility of such evidence under
sub-clause (4) having regard to any representations made by the
prosecutor and the accused. The object of this reform is to
S minimize delays occasioned during the trial after the jury has been
empanelled by the late taking of objections to evidence. Under sub-
clause (5) as now worded, where the defence does not object in
advance to such evidence, its admissibility at the trial shall not
be objected to unless the judge is satisfied that the objection
could not reasonably have been made during the preparatory hearing.