The submission of no case to answer

The ordinary trigger is the close of the prosecution evidence, before the defence case. A submission of no case to answer asks whether the prosecution evidence is legally sufficient to require the trial to continue. The defence may apply; the court may also act on its own initiative. The prosecutor must have an opportunity to respond. This is a decision about evidential sufficiency, not an early choice of which side the tribunal ultimately believes. See CrimPR 24.3(3)(d) and 25.9(2)(e).

Check the narrow deferred-decision exception. Under CrimPR 25.9(3), where the defendant is charged with causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm under Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s 5, the no-case decision on a linked charge of murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or an offence under OAPA 1861, s 18 or s 20 must wait until all the evidence has been heard. The underlying provisions are DVCVA 2004, ss 6 and 6A. This does not defer every no-case application involving domestic abuse, every serious offence, or automatically every count in the indictment. Identify both the specified linked charge and the s 5 charge.

The Galbraith test has two limbs. First, if there is no evidence that the defendant committed the offence—for example, no evidence capable of establishing an essential element—the case must stop. Second, where there is some evidence but it is tenuous, ask whether, taken at its highest, it is so weak that a properly directed jury could not properly convict. If so, the judge must stop the case. “At its highest” means taking the prosecution evidence on a view reasonably open to a jury; it does not mean inventing missing evidence or accepting an impossible inference. The primary authority is R v Galbraith (1981)Key caseR v Galbraith[1981] 1 WLR 1039, [1981] 1 WLR 1039.

Do not usurp the fact-finder. If the strength of the case depends on a witness’s reliability or another matter ordinarily for the jury, and one possible view of the facts would justify conviction, the case is left to the jury. A conventional inconsistency or a strong cross-examination point does not necessarily make evidence legally incapable of belief. Conversely, describing an objection as “credibility” does not rescue evidence so inherently weak, vague or contradictory that a conviction could not properly follow. The question is not whether the judge personally expects an acquittal.

If no case succeeds, identify the forum and count. Magistrates acquit on the affected charge without calling on the defence. In a jury trial, the judge withdraws the count and directs an acquittal. This directed acquittalGlossary termDirected acquittal follows a legal ruling; it is different from a jury acquittal after evaluating the completed evidence. A prosecutor offering no evidence can engage the separate CJA 1967, s 17 procedure; do not describe every no-case decision as that procedure. Any prosecutor’s challenge to a qualifying terminating ruling involves a separate statutory appeal route considered in Deep Dive 12, not an ordinary continuation of defence evidence.

If no case fails, only the threshold has been crossed. It does not mean the judge accepts the prosecution evidence, that the defendant must testify, or that guilt is proved. The trial proceeds to the evidence choice in section 5. The final fact-finder may later reject prosecution evidence and acquit.

Identification and weak hearsay have their own additional safeguards. Apply those rather than treating this general map as permission to ignore them. Authorities: GalbraithKey caseR v Galbraith[1981] 1 WLR 1039; Turnbull; CJA 2003 section 125.