Analysis: Without a body, other evidence must be strong

IT IS rare but not unheard of to see the Crown conduct a murder trial without first having a body. More often than not, the body is the central piece of evidence. In its absence, the police and the Crown have to find a lot more strong, circumstantial evidence.

Forensic scientists pore over the body, pathologists conduct a post-mortem, and this generates the evidence that bolsters the Crown’s case. For example, if you have a victim who has been stabbed, it might show that the wound was caused by a particular knife, which was found on the accused. There may also be DNA linking the deceased to the accused.

If I was defending in a case where there was no body, the first conclusion I would draw is it is going to be more difficult for the Crown. So I would look at all the other pieces of evidence very carefully to see if there was a weak link, and then try to capitalise on that.

In this case, the accused may seek to appeal on the basis that the prosecution showed documents to the jury that it had previously agreed with the defence it would not divulge. The key questions here are whether that prejudiced the case, and was the accused still able to have a fair trial.

The problem facing any appeal is that ensuring the trial is conducted fairly is one of the judge’s roles. Clearly, in this case, he has ruled against abandoning the trial.

It may still be sufficient grounds for an appeal; it would depend on the circumstances.

But, generally speaking, the appeal court is very reluctant to disagree with the trial judge. It would have to be a strong and compelling argument to convince it to do so.

• Peter Lockhart is a criminal defence solicitor with Lockharts.