Newton hearing

A Newton hearing or inquiry is a comparatively modern legal procedure used where the two sides offer such conflicting evidence that a judge sitting alone (that is, without a jury) tries to ascertain which party is telling the truth.^[1] They are generally used when a defendant pleads guilty to an offence (as in R v Newton itself), but there are factual issues (relating, for example, to the appropriate sentence) that need to be resolved between the prosecution and defence.

Origin

The name stems from a 1983 case R v Newton in which the defendant admitted buggery but claimed his wife had given her consent^[2]. The Court of Appeal ruled that in such cases either

• evidence could be heard from both sides and a conclusion reached on the matter which was the root of the problem , or
• no evidence heard but submissions analysed and, where a substantial doubt still persisted, benefit be given to the defendant.

Notable cases

These include:
1. R v Newton (1983) Crim LR 198.
2. R v Ahmed (1985) Crim LR 250 CA.
3. R v Mirza (1993) 14 Cr. App. R. (s) 64, [1992] Crim LR 600.
4. R v Odey (1985) Crim LR 55.
5. R v Mirza (1992) Crim LR 600
6. R v Ndikum (2008) The News (Portsmouth)^[3]

Notes

1. ^ Explanation of term
2. ^ “Legal Competence in Environmental Health” Moran,T: London, E &FN Spon, 1997 ISBN 0419230009
3. ^ Tuesday 15th April 2008: article by Victoria Taylor Student’s nightmare over false rape claim

External links

• Description from practitioner
• Term used on Court Martial form