Sentences with phrase «trial by ambush»

... She did not appear to consider that the object of the Rules to avoid trial by ambush only apply to evidence that would be used at trial, not to expert advice received through consultation.

Has the move away from «trial by ambush» to substantial pre-trial discovery actually been beneficial?

In our criminal justice system the Crown Counsel is not entitled to a trial by ambush.

Playing uncivil, tactical, inappropriate, old - school, trial by ambush games like: threatening to require proof of obviously valid records, holding back important documents until the last second, failing to fulfil undertakings until the eve of trial, delivering new expert's reports during the trial, saying untrue things to counsel opposite (whether knowingly or not), failing to prepare examinations in advance to «wing it» at trial, refusing to agree to the admissibility of relevant documents while requiring changes to be made to irrelevant ones, refusing to share costs of joint expenses, refusing to cooperate on court ordered process matters, are all wrongful.

[12] In my view, the basis of Rule 40A is to provide adequate notice of evidence which is to be tendered by way of an expert's opinion to avoid trial by ambush, to avoid unnecessary delays, and to generally permit trials to be run in an orderly fashion.

[114] In my view, the improper use of the surveillance evidence gave rise to a form of trial by ambush.

Jackson LJ remarked that the legal community seems to be in agreement that «the «cards on the table» approach enforced by the exchange of witness statements» is successful in «prevent [ing] «trial by ambush»».

[42] The object of the discovery rules is to prevent trial by ambush.

The purpose is to allow an accused person to review the evidence against him or her and avoid a trial by ambush.

our court systems do not allow «trials by ambush».

Not exact matches

The episode depicts the origins of #FreddyKrueger, the infamous trial where he was convicted of his crimes and the ultimate ambush and scorching by the neighborhood parents.

The facts accepted by the learned trial Judge and confirmed by the Court of Appeal was that the Appellant bathed the deceased with an acid having laid ambush for him.