Sentences with phrase «essential element of the offence»

At the resumed sitting today, the trial judge, citing Sections 302, 303, 357 and 358 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 noted that, it was in order for a defendant to apply to the court for a «no - case» submission, but the «court shall have discretion whether essential elements of the offence have been proven or not».

However, the test is never to be applied rigidly, and is not to be limited to the essential elements of the offence.

In her submission, Mrs. Onuogu argued that the prosecution had proved the essential elements of the offences with which the former Governor was being charged, and that the principle of a no - case submission made by him failed where the defendant had explanations to make in response to the charges against him.

Metuh had on Thursday, February 25, 2016 through his counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, filed a «no - case» submission on the grounds that, the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of the offences charged, a situation he said rendered the case against him manifestly unreliable.

The question one must ask is whether the date of the offence was either an essential element of the offence or crucial to the defence.

There must simply be «some or a scintilla of evidence on each essential element of the offence».

If the Criminal Defence Lawyer can raise a reasonable doubt about any of the essential elements of the offence, the accused is entitled to be found not guilty.

The two considerations are that 1) the «main offence contains the essential elements of the offence to be included», and 2) «the description of the offence is sufficient to alert the accused to all of the included offences that may apply.»

The intent is to hurt the person depicted in them and this should be an essential element of the offence.

In sum, the Court answers the questions as follows: The rate of speed is not an essential element of the offence; the court does not have discretion to reduce the fine; and the practice of amending up is permissible.

In his defence, the appellant argued that Canada did not have the jurisdiction to prosecute him for the offence as the deprivation of the victim is the essential element of the offence and, if it did occur at all, it did not occur in Canada.