The Court refused the Council leave under UCPR r 31.8(3) to rely on the respondent's own earlier affidavits as additional evidence in chief in contempt proceedings, holding that the Council's failure to anticipate the respondent exercising her right to silence was not a satisfactory explanation for delay, particularly where the Council had previously represented that all evidence in chief was filed and the respondent had entered pleas on that basis. The Court permitted reliance on one discrete paragraph of a solicitor's affidavit that had provided sufficient notice of the specific admission. The decision confirms that in contempt proceedings, where the prosecution bears the criminal standard of proof, the fact that evidence originates from the respondent does not negate prejudice from late reliance on it.
The full text is available to signed-in members.