No case to answer

No case for the defendant to answer (sometimes shortened to no case to answer) is a term in British criminal law, whereby a defendant seeks acquittal without having to present a defence. The plea is also occasionally, although rarely, used in civil cases where it is alleged that the pleaded case and/or evidence do not meet the minimum threshold to establish liability.

At the close of the prosecution's case during a criminal trial, the defendant may submit to the judge or magistrate that there is no case for the defendant to answer (similar to a motion for a directed verdict in a United States court). If the judge agrees, then the matter is dismissed and the defendant is acquitted without having to present any evidence in their defence. If the judge does not accept the submission, the case continues and the defence must present their case.

Because a judge's refusal to uphold such a submission may potentially bias a jury's decision, a submission of no case to answer is usually heard in the absence of the jury.

The general approach to be followed was described by Lord Lane CJ:

(1) If there is no evidence that the crime alleged has been committed by the defendant, there is no difficulty. The judge will of course stop the case.

(2) The difficulty arises where there is some evidence but it is of a tenuous character, for example because of inherent weakness or vagueness or because it is inconsistent with other evidence.

In a trial in the Crown Court, a submission by counsel that there is no case to answer is heard in the absence of the jury. A submission may be made at the close of the prosecution case or at a later stage.

When, in the judgment of the trial judge, the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, as for example when it depends solely on a fleeting glimpse or on a longer observation made in difficult conditions (for example, in bad weather, poor lighting or in a fast moving vehicle), the judge should withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence which goes to support the correctness of the identification.

Where it is clear that an accused has committed an offence but it is impossible to say which offence was committed, neither crime can be left to the jury.

Similarly, where it is possible to say that one defendant definitely committed a crime, but it is not possible to say which defendant and there is no evidence of joint enterprise, both must be acquitted.

There may be no conviction based wholly on silence and the judge must withdraw a case from the jury if the only evidence tendered by the prosecution is the defendant's silence in interview.

The procedure is governed by section 97 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which states that:

...
Wikipedia